IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2010 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 26485 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- D.VINOD, VARIYARATHARAYIL, MANKAMKUZHY P.O., MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN-688 001. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ALAPPUZHA-688 001. 3. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN-689 645. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. RANI DIOTHIMA P. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 26485 of 2010(I) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT DATED 14.09.2007. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 21.05.2010 EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE TIMINGS ISSUED AS EARLY AS ON 14.09.2007. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUING THAT A TIMING CONFERENCE HAS BEEN FIXED ON 12.08.2010. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 26485 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 2nd December , 2010 J U D G M E N T The main prayer sought for in the Writ Petition is to direct the 2nd respondent to implement Ext. P2 proceeding, however without giving effect to the rider as to the 'settlement of timing' afresh. The contention of the petitioner is that the timing in respect of the vehicle bearing No. KL-16/B 877 has already been settled by virtue of Ext. P3 and that the stipulation contained in Ext.P2 is rather superfluous or unwarranted . 2. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit explaining the facts and figures as to the different rounds of litigations, finally leading to Ext. P2. The necessity to have imposed such settlement of timing is also projected therein. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit stating that, by virtue of delay involved, much loss and prejudice have been caused to the petitioner and that nothing prevents the second respondent in implementing Ext. P2 with the settled timings, giving liberty to have it re-settled, as stipulated in Ext.P2 within a time frame. W.P.(C) No. 26485 OF 2010 2 After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that this matter does not require to be kept pending any further. Accordingly, the second respondent is directed to implement Ext. P2 on the basis of the timings to be settled as stated in Ext. P2, which shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It is also made clear that, while settling the timings as above, all the parties, including the petitioner shall be given an opportunity of hearing. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk