IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2008 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 6564 of 2008(F) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------ SMT. SHEELA LUKKOSE, AGED 37, W/O. LUKKOSE, PARAPURATH NJATTINKALA HOUSE, VALAMBORE, KUNNATHUNADU, PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON SRI.M.JITHESH MENON RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.6564/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DT. 29.7.04. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER FILED BY THE PETITIONER DT. 29.7.04. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE IST RESPONDENT DT. 16.5.06. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE IST RESPONDENT DT. 15.3.07. EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN MVAA. NO.231/07 DT. 15.5.07. EXT.P6:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS CONTAINING TIMINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT. 24.7.07. EXT.P7:- COPY OF THE ORDER KIN MVARP NO.376/07 DT. 5.11.07. EXT.P8:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE IST RESPONDENT DT. 18.12.07. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 6564 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT In Ext.P7, order passed by STAT in MVARP No. 376 of 2007, the following direction was issued: “In the result, this petition is allowed and setting aside the timings allotted to petitioner's service as per the impugned order, the matter is remanded to the second respondent to consider the feasibility of reducing the waiting time at Ernakulam and fixing the halting and starting place at Patimattom and to re- settle the timings allotted to the petitioner's service accordingly, of course after hearing the affected parties also in the matter. Till such re-settlement the status quo will continue.” 2. It is seen that pursuant to the direction in Ext.P7, the Secretary, RTA has to consider the matter, but it was placed before the 1st respondent, which passed Ext.P8 order. In Ext.P8 order, there is no mention about consideration of the direction of the Tribunal regarding the change of halting place. But, however, it is stated that the petitioner has not suggested a clash free set of timings on a suitable stop that reduces waiting time. Thus, the WPC No. 6564 OF 2008 2 request was rejected. 3. In my view, the 1st respondent ought to have considered the direction of the STAT for change of halting place. In so far as the rejection of the petitioner's request for a direction of the Tribunal to resettle the timing, learned Government Pleader submits that if the petitioner suggests a clash free set of timings, the 1st respondent is still willing to consider the same. In view of this, I direct that the 1st respondent shall reconsider the matter in the light of the directions in Ext.P7 order of the STAT in MVARP No. 376 of 2007. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ttb WPC No. 6564 OF 2008 3