IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2008 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 14862 of 2008(T) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER: --------------------- P.K.SABU, PULIYANAPUZHA, KIZHATHIRI PO, RAMAPURAM, KOTTAYAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM. 2. BOBY JOSEPH, PURAPPANTHANAM HOUSE, RAMAPURAM, PALA. 3. V.J.RADHAMONY, ROHINI HOUSE, VAZITHALA PO, THODUPUZHA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR - R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.14862/2008 T APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G/36358/04K DTD. 28/10/2005 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 22/05/2007 IN M.V.A.R.P NO. 432/2005 PASSED BY THE S.T.A.T. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DTD. 16/10/2007 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 28/11/2007 IN M.V.A.R.P.NO.503/2007 AND 508 OF 2007 PASSED BY THE S.T.A.T. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD.29/02/2008 IN WP(C) NO. 37242 OF 2007 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD.11/04/2008 IN W.A.NO.784 OF 2008 AND WP(C) NO.102 OF 2008. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DTD. 9/05/2007 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R2(A): COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 29/04/2008. EXT.R2(B): COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 7/05/2008. EXT.R2(C): COPY OF THE TIMING NOTICE DTD. 13/05/2008. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.14862 OF 2008 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of May, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ The prayer in this writ petition is mainly against Ext.P7. Petitioner is the permit holder of the route Pala– Thoudupuzha. While the petitioner was operating in the aforesaid sector by Ext.P1 proceedings, the timings of the 2nd respondent was revised. The petitioner filed a revision and that resulted in Ext.P2 order in M.V.A.R.P. No.432/2005. 2. The Tribunal in that order directed resettlement of timing in the manner indicated therein. It is stated that implementing Ext.P2 order, timings of the 2nd respondent were revised by Ext.P3. Against Ext.P3 respondents 2 and 3 filed revision petition before the Tribunal which was rejected by Ext.P4 order. Challenging Ext.P4, the 2nd respondent filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.(C)No.37242/2004 and W.P.(C) No.102/2008 was also filed by the 3rd respondent. 3. W.P.(C)No.37242/2007 was heard and disposed of by Ext.P5 judgment setting aside Ext.P4, but however directing W.P.(C) No.14862/2008 2 that until timing is again resettled, the status quo will be maintained in the mean while. It is stated that against Ext.P5, W.A.No.784/2008 was filed by the petitioner herein and that was dismissed by Ext.P6 judgment. Along with Writ Appeal, W.P.(C)No.102/2008 filed by the 3rd respondent was also disposed of. Since Ext.P5 judgment was confirmed by Division Bench, W.P(C) No.102/2008 was also allowed for the same reasons as stated in Ext.P5. 4. The complaint in this writ petition is that though in Ext.P5 judgment status quo was directed to be maintained until the timing is resettled, without complying with the same, 1st respondent issued Ext.P7 allowing Ext.P1 timings to the 2nd respondent. It is challenging this, the this writ petition has been filed. 5. Though arguments were raised by both sides on the merits of the dispute, the fact that in view of the directions in Ext.P5 judgment, until timing is resettled as directed therein, the revised timings as per Ext.P3 should govern the parties, cannot be of any dispute. Though this has not been done the official W.P.(C) No.14862/2008 3 respondents, it is now pointed out that the timing conference in pursuance to Ext.P5 judgment is scheduled to take place on 30.5.2008. Therefore, I do not think at this last minute it will be desirable to upset the position as it is obtaining today. Therefore, if in the timing conference is now scheduled to 30th May, 2008, the timing of the parties is resettled as directed in Ext.P5 in the light of Ext.P2 order of the S.T.A.T, the parties will be governed by such timings. 6. However, it is further directed that if for any reason timing is not settled in the meeting now scheduled on 30.5.2008, 1st respondent will recall Ext.P7 and issue orders in terms of Ext.P3 revised timings until timing is settled as directed. 7. It is directed that the parties shall co-operate with the authorities for settlement of timings in the meeting now scheduled to 30.5.2008. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) ps