IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2011 / 24TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 19254 of 2011(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- HEENA DILEEP,KODAPPULLY HOUSE, NERUVISSERY PO, ARATTUPUZHA, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR SMT.G.CHITRA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,PIN 680 001. 2. THE SECRETARY,REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,THRISSUR,PIN 680 001. 3. A.K.JOSE,ANTHIKKADAN HOUSE, ANCHERY ,THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 006. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.S.ABDUL SALAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) NO.19254 of 2011 EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 10.3.2005 ISSUING TIMINGS FOR THE PETITIONER'S SERVICE. EXT.P2 TURE COY OF THE TIMINGS ISSUED IN RESPECT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT'S SERVICE ON THE ROUTE THRISSUR – PULLAZHI. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 22.7.2010 GRANTING VARIATION OF PERMIT TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 30.6.2011 FIXING THE TIMING CONFERENCE TO 19.7.2011 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 2.7.2011 //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.19254 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a stage carriage operator operating a stage carriage on the route Arattupuzha-Pullazhi via Thrissur and Ayyanthole on the strength of a regular permit. The third respondent is another stage carriage operator, operating a stage carriage on the route Thrissur-Pullazhi Via Ayyanthole. He applied for a variation of the route by extending the service to Pullazhi. The Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur granted that application by Ext.P3 proceedings dated 22.7.2010 without changing the existing time schedule but subject to settlement of timings for the extension. The third respondent thereafter filed W.P.(C) No.1260 of 2011 in this Court and the said writ petition was disposed of by judgment delivered 31.5.2011 with a direction to the second respondent to settle the timings and issue the varied permit within one month from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. The petitioner herein thereafter submitted Ext.P5 objections. It appears thereafter the second respondent issued Ext.P4 notice proposing to hold a timing conference in respect of the third respondent's stage carriage on 19.7.2011. This writ petition is filed mainly seeking a direction to the second W.P.(C) No.19254 of 2011 2 respondent to consider Ext.P5 objection submitted by the petitioner and to afford him an opportunity of being heard before settling the time schedule of the third respondent's stage carriage pursuant to Ext.P3 proceedings. 2. This Court has by judgment delivered on 31.5.2011 in W.P.(C) No.1260 of 2011 directed the second respondent to settle the time schedule in respect of the third respondent's stage carriage. Necessarily therefore, the second respondent will have to invite objections and consider the same before settling the timings in respect of the third respondent's stage carriage. The petitioner cannot therefore have any apprehension that her objections will not be looked into by the second respondent. However, in view of the fact that the petitioner has chosen to file a written objection before the second respondent, I dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the second respondent to consider the objection raised by the petitioner in Ext.P5 representation also while taking a decision on the application submitted by the third respondent for settlement of timings. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.