IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 4TH OCTOBER 2010 / 12TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 13900 of 2010(J) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- SABITHA. U.C, BAITHUL FATHIMA, NEAR GOVINDVILASAM SCHOOL, P.O. ARAKKINAR, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE. 2. O.N. ABDULLA KOYA, KOZHYTHOTTAM HOUSE, KOZHIKODE. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/10/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.13900 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is an existing stage carriage operator on the route Bepore-City-Puthiyappa Harbour with stage carriage bearing registration No.KL 11/M 1177. She is aggrieved by Ext.P3 notice. Based on an application from the second respondent, it was proposed to convene a timing conference to fix the timings in respect of his vehicle. The apprehension of the petitioner is that based on the request of the second respondent, the first respondent would allot fresh timings in respect of the second respondent and in which event, it might cause prejudice to the petitioner. I am of the view that this Court need not go into the merits of such contentions at this point of time. Admittedly, the second respondent has submitted an application before the first respondent for revision of timings. It is pursuant to that Ext.P3 notice has been issued to the petitioner. When an application for revision of timings is submitted by an existing operator, the competent authority has to consider the same in accordance with law. Needless to say that before considering and taking W.P.(C) NO.13900/2010 2 final decision on such applications, the interested operators on the route were to be afforded with an opportunity of being heard. In fact, it is to comply with the statutory mandate on that line that Ext.P3 notice was served on the petitioner. Therefore, there is no basis for the apprehension of the petitioner that the first respondent would not follow the prescribed procedures before taking a decision on the request of the second respondent to revise his timings. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is closed. It is made clear that the petitioner will be free to make all her contentions before the first respondent. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.13900/2010 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.13900/2010 4