The petitioners are aggrieved with the timings issued on the temporary permit, in pursuance to Ext.P6 judgment. The grant to the 2nd respondent is not in dispute. That the 2nd respondent also proposed a timing as per Ext.P3, also is not in dispute. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, contends that Ext.P3 was the proposed timings initially given by the 2nd respondent and that is not the timing now settled. Admittedly timings were never settled in a properly scheduled conference. 2. By Ext.P4, the 2nd respondent offered another vehicle to be replaced in the permit. That was also granted. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent was heard; and Ext.P7 was passed issuing temporary permit on the proposed WP(C).31081/14 2 timings, which was in compliance of the order of this Court. When the temporary permit was issued, the proposed timings shown therein, as is seen from Ext.P7, differ considerably from Ext.P3. This is the objection raised by the petitioners herein who are the rival operators.
3. The 2nd respondent contends that, the Secretary himself asked for a different set of timings by letter dated 07.09.2013 and it was such proposed timings which has been issued in Ext.P7. In fact, on a reading of Ext.P7, it is clear that, the Secretary, at the time of consideration as per Ext.P6 judgment; also felt that the said proposed timings may not be proper, since it would lead to clash among rival operators. However, in the anxiety to comply with the judgment, the Secretary had issued such timings.
WP(C).31081/14 3
4. In such circumstances, within a period of two weeks from today, if the timing conference is not scheduled, the petitioners and the 2nd respondent shall be heard and a different set of timings shall be granted to the 2nd respondent as the Secretary deems fit looking at the timings of the other rival operators and after hearing their objections.
The writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN Judge Mrcs //True Copy//