IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 17TH MAY 2010 / 27TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 447 of 2010(E) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- P.S.PRAMOD, S/O.P.A.SIVARAMAN, PARAMMAL HOUSE, PANNISERRY, KOONAMOOCHI, GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL SIVARAMAN, SMT.APARNA RAJAN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- SECRETARY, RTA, MALAPPURAM. *ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED: R2. K.SENTHIL KUMAR, S/O.KAILASANATHAN, TC1/43, SREERAJESWARI HOUSE, SANKARAPURAM, THRISSUR. (*ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 4/2/2010 IN I.A.NO.1632/2010) R1 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.447/2010 E APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 19/07/2008. P2: COPY OF M.V.A.R.P.NO. 348/08 DTD. 10/10/2008. P3: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE STAT IN MVARP NO.348/08 DTD.22/10/2008. P4: COPY OF WRITTEN OBJECTION DTD. 31/12/2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO:447 OF 2010 E ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th May, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is a stage carriage operator. He has filed Ext.P1request for the revision of his existing timings. The request in Ext.P1 was initially rejected by the respondent. However, as per Ext.P3, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal directed the respondent to reconsider the request made in Ext.P1. The petitioner has filed Ext.P4 representation requesting the respondent to confine the revision of timings to what is sought for in Ext.P1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking appropriate directions for the revision of his timings, strictly in accordance with Ext.P1. 2. The additional second respondent has got himself impleaded in this writ petition, objecting to the relief sought for by the petitioner. According to the second respondent he has serious objections to the proposal submitted by the petitioner. Therefore, he prays that his objections may also be considered while revising the timings of the petitioner. 3. In view of the fact that Ext.P1 is pending consideration of the first respondent, while considering the same the objections of WPC 447/2010 2 the additional second respondent also are necessary to be considered. 4. In the above circumstances this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the request of the petitioner contained in Exts.P1 and P4 in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing and considering the objections of the additional second respondent also. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 447/2010 3