The petitioner is aggrieved with the revision of timings attempted as per Exts.P3 and P4 notices. The petitioner is a stage carriage operator whose timings were settled as per Ext.P1. The writ petition was filed on the contention that the 2nd respondent, a rival operator, has sought for revision of petitioner's timings with the Regional Transport Officer, Kannur, who has issued Ext.P3 notice. The short contention of the petitioner is that, no revision could have been effected by the authority who already settled the timings in his favour which settlement of timings were subject to a revision before the Tribunal which remedy obviously, the 2nd respondent has not resorted to. It was hence, the petitioner has challenged the proceedings initiated to revise WP(C).27057/13 2 the timings of the petitioner. The petitioner was also granted a stay which was continued from 07.11.2013. The 2nd respondent though was served, has not appeared. 2. The State has filed a statement contending that in an Adalath conducted by the Transport Commissioner on 06.07.2013, the 2nd respondent had raised dispute on the timings settled in favour of the petitioner upon which the Transport Commissioner directed revision of the same. When no revision as provided in the Statute was filed and the timings of the petitioner was settled after hearing objections, the Transport Commissioner ought not to have taken up the matter in an Adalath especially when there was no legal proceedings pending against such settlement, by any affected party; definitely, not by the 2nd respondent.
WP(C).27057/13 3 In the above circumstances, the writ petition is allowed directing that no proceedings need be issued pursuant to Exts.P3 and P4 as against the petitioner's timings settled as per Ext.P1. Parties are left to suffer their respective costs.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN Judge Mrcs //True Copy//