IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 16TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2690 of 2010(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C. SHAMEER, S/O. MOOSAKOYA HAJI, 15/1337, JASMINE HOUSE, VELLIPARAMBA P.O., KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. MR.K.G.ANIL BABU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KANNUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: nl K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 2690 OF 2010 I ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th February, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is a stage carriage operator conducting service on the route Kozhikode-Kanhangad. His vehicle is KL-13-L-5204. He has a settled set of timings. According to the petitioner another vehicle KL-59A2023 which was operating on the route Kanhangad -Thrissur was having another set of timings, which were revised by Ext.P2. Consequent to such revision of timings a slot of timings has become vacant. The petitioner further contends that a second time slot has fallen vacant by surrender of the same by yet another service. The petitioner has submitted a request, evidenced herein by Ext.P3 for revision of his own timings by allotment of the vacant timings to him. He complains that no orders have been passed on Ext. P3 so far. 2. The Govt. Pleader on instructions submits that the application submitted by the petitioner does not disclose any valid grounds for the revision of his timings. According to the Govt. Pleader there are no grounds for considering the request contained in Ext.P3. WPC 2690/2010 2 3. It is not necessary for me to go into the merits of the rival contentions that are put forward before me. The question as to whether the petitioner's timings should be revised or not has to be considered by the respondent, in accordance with law. Therefore, this writ petition can be disposed of directing the respondent to consider Ext.P3. 4. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the respondent to consider Ext.P3 request of the petitioner for revision of his own timings in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months of production of a copy of this judgment, after giving notice to and hearing all interested parties. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 2690/2010 3 K.K.DENESAN & V. RAMKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO: ----------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Dated: