Judgment · High Court · 2008

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, 2008JUDGMENTK.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 theappellant in this writ appeal. He is challenging the judgment dated 29thFebruary, 2008 in the writ petition and also the order passed by the learnedSingle Judge dismissing R.P.No.363/2008. The dispute revolves around thetiming conference convened by the Secretary R.T.A. on 11-10-2007.Admittedly there was a conference on 3-10-2007 in which the firstrespondent/petitioner in the writ petition was absent. It was adjourned to11-10-2007 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 noticeto the first respondent, allowed the writ petition and directed the Secretary,R.T.A. to convene a fresh meeting. The learned Single Judge further directedthe Secretary, R.T.A. to maintain status quo as on that day till a final decisionis taken. (3). The appellant filed R.P.No.363/2008 challenging thejudgment. The learned Single Judge, after going through the records findingthat 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, learnedcounsel for the respondents and also the learned Government Pleader.(6). The material on record shows that on 3-10-2007, notiming conference was held. It was adjourned to 11-10-2007. There isnothing on record to show that the petitioner was given any notice eitherverbalor documentary. So, the decision taken by the learned Single Judgeis 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 againstExts.P2 and P4 orders. Those orders were quashed by the learned SingleJudge in W.P.C. 37242/2007. Today we have dismissed the writ appeal filedagainst 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 P4orders are quashed. The Secretary, R.T.A. shall re-consider the matter andpass fresh orders, in accordance with law. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (K.PADMANABHAN NAIR) JUDGE MS