IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2010 / 18TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17638 of 2010(D) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- JOSEPH CHACKO, THOTTICHIRAYIL HOUSE, KUMARAKOM P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.INEES RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM. 2. SRI.C.R.MANOHARAN, S/O.LATE RAGHAVAN, KARAYATHARA HOUSE, POONTHURA, ERNAKULAM DIST. R1 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.S.MUHAMMED HASHIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KsS K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO:17638 OF 2010 D ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th June, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is a stage carriage operator conducting services on the route Kottayam-Ernakulam with four services. He has submitted Ext.P1 objections to the application submitted by the second respondent for the revision of timings of his services. The second respondent is conducting services with stage carriage bearing registration NO: KL-7/P-1836 on the route Aluva-Kottayam via Ernakulam. As per Ext.P2 judgment this Court has directed the first respondent to consider his request in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of two months. The petitioner apprehends that his objections would not be considered for the reason that there is no direction to consider the same. However, since the direction in Ext.P1 is to consider and dispose of the second respondent's application in accordance with law, it goes without saying that such an order can be passed only after considering the objections of the petitioner also. Therefore, there cannot be any objection to the issue of a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P1 objections. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the application for revision of WPC 17638/2010 2 timings submitted by the petitioner is still pending and that no decision has been taken thereon pursuant to Ext.P2 judgment. 2. In view of the above this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider Ext.P1 objections submitted by the petitioner while considering the application for revision of timings submitted by the second respondent, in terms of the directions contained in Ext.P2 judgment. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 17638/2010 3