IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 22ND MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 3971 of 2009(W) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- SANKARA NARAYANAN, VADASSERI HOUSE PO., MANALUR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 3971 OF 2009 (W) ==================== Dated this the 11th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner made an application for a regular permit as per Ext.P1. In that application, he also requested that he be issued the timing which was alloted to the defaulted Stage Carriage No.KL-8/V.2793. Petitioner states that the application was rejected on the ground of objectionable overlapping. 2. He carried the matter in appeal by filing MVAA No.129/08 The appeal was allowed by Ext.P2 judgment and the RTA was directed to reconsider the request in accordance with law. By Ext.P3 proceedings, the RTA granted the permit applied for subject to settlement of timings. 3. In this writ petition, petitioner is objecting to the rider in Ext.P3 that the grant is subject to settlement of timings. According to the petitioner, he applied for the vacant timing which was alloted to stage carriage KL-8/V.2793 and that Ext.P2 judgment also does not say that grant is subject to settlement of timings. Therefore, it is contended that the RTA could not have imposed the condition referred to above. 4. Learned Government Pleader points out that the STAT did not direct that he should be granted the timing as applied for by him. It is WPC 3971/09 :2 : stated that in the absence of any such positive direction, RTA is entitled to make the grant subject to settlement of timings. 5. Irrespective of the controversy now raised between the parties, the fact remains that the conference for settlement of timings in so far as the petitioner is concerned is now scheduled to be held on 5/3/2009. Counsel for the petitioner submits that a timing conference is already fixed on 19/2/2009 and that in that conference, there is a likelihood that the timing applied for by him may be allotted to other parties. It is stated that in order to prevent such possibility, he made Ext.P4 request to the Secretary requesting that either the relevant agenda of the timing conference scheduled to 19/2/2009 be deferred till 5/3/2009 or to prepone his matter to 19/2/2009. 6. Now that the said representation is pending, I do not wish to go into the merits of the contentions. On the other hand, I would direct the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 representation made by the petitioner. Petitioner may produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent, who shall consider the request and pass orders thereon, at any rate before 17/2/2009. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp