IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT :- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2008 / 22ND CHAITHRA 1930 WA.No. 784 of 2008 --------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENTIN WPC.37242/2007 Dated 29-2-2008 & ORDER IN R.P.No.363/2008 Dated 24/03/2008 .................... APPELLANT: REVIEW PETITIONER/3RD RESPONDENT:- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- P.K.SABU, PULIYANAPUZHA, KIZHUTHIRI, RAMAPURAM, PALA. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1,2 & 4 IN WP:- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. BOBY JOSEPH, PURAPPANTHANAM HOUSE, RAMAPURAM P.O. PALA. 2. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM. 4. V.J.RADHAMONI, ROHINI HOUSE, VAZHITHALA P.O., THODUPUZHA. R1 BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON R2 & R3 BY SMT.K.MEERA, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER. R4 BY SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/04/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 102 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------------------------------------------ W.A.No.784 of 2008-D in R.P.363/2008 in W.P (C )No. 37242/2007 & W.P.(C) No.102 of 2008-K ------------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 11th day of April, 2008 JUDGMENT K.Padmanabhan Nair, J. W.A.No.784 of 2008-D in R.P.363/2008 in W.P (C )No. 37242/2007: The third respondent in W.P.(C) No.37242/2007 is the appellant in this writ appeal. He is challenging the judgment dated 29th February, 2008 in the writ petition and also the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing R.P.No.363/2008. The dispute revolves around the timing conference convened by the Secretary R.T.A. on 11-10-2007. Admittedly there was a conference on 3-10-2007 in which the first respondent/petitioner in the writ petition was absent. It was adjourned to 11-10-2007 and on that day changes are made. Challenging that decision, the first respondent filed the writ petition. (2). The learned Single Judge, finding that there was no notice to the first respondent, allowed the writ petition and directed the Secretary, R.T.A. to convene a fresh meeting. The learned Single Judge further directed the Secretary, R.T.A. to maintain status quo as on that day till a final decision is taken. (3). The appellant filed R.P.No.363/2008 challenging the judgment. The learned Single Judge, after going through the records finding that there was no error apparent on the face of the record, dismissed the W.A.No.784/2008 & WPC 102/2008 -2- review petition. (4). Challenging that order this writ appeal is filed. (5). We heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondents and also the learned Government Pleader. (6). The material on record shows that on 3-10-2007, no timing conference was held. It was adjourned to 11-10-2007. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was given any notice either verbal or documentary. So, the decision taken by the learned Single Judge is perfectly correct and we do not see any ground to interfere with that order. The appeal is without any merit and it is dismissed. W.P.( C) No.102 of 2008: (7). The challenge in this writ petition is directed against Exts.P2 and P4 orders. Those orders were quashed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.C. 37242/2007. Today we have dismissed the writ appeal filed against that judgment. So, this writ petition is also to be allowed. (8). In the result, W.P.(C) 102/2008 is allowed. Ext.P2 and P4 orders are quashed. The Secretary, R.T.A. shall re-consider the matter and pass fresh orders, in accordance with law. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (K.PADMANABHAN NAIR) JUDGE MS