AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.D. Dinakaran, J.—The grievance of the petitioners in most of the cases, viz., W.P. Nos. 18260 to 18265 of 2005, W.P. Nos. 18289 to 18296 of 2005 and W.P. Nos. 18313 to 18317 of 2005 is that the timing conference was conducted in the manner prejudicial to the interest of the petitioners as well as the general public and hence, the timing conference notice should be quashed. In some cases, viz., W.P. Nos. 18793, 18803, 18818 and 18981 of 2005, the petitioners seek to restrain the authorities from conducting the timing conference.
Mr.P.Chandrasekaran, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the Transport Authorities in all petitions.
Learned Additional Government Pleader, on instructions from the Government, submits that the Transport Authorities will give two weeks'' clear notice for timing conference. The submission of learned Additional Government Pleader is placed on record.
Even though the Rule 248 of the Motor Vehicles Rules contemplates a notice only to the Association, the Transport Authorities shall also be directed to give individual notice to all the Operators concerned, the expenses of which shall be borne by the applicants concerned, so that the interest of individual operators who are directly interested in the timing conference shall be protected.
The Transport Authorities are directed to issue time conference notice as well as individual notice afresh in respect of the routes concerned in all the writ petitions including the ones where the timing conference has already been done, in the manner as directed supra and convene the timing conference and pass orders in accordance with law.
With the above directions, the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Connected WP.M.Ps. are closed.