JUDGMENT :- 1. By consent the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The averments made in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, would disclose that the petitioner applied for a Mini Bus Permit to the 1st Respondent for the route Sivagangai Bus-Stand to Marudhupandiapuram. The 1st Respondent after verifying the compliance of the relevant statutory provisions, has granted permit to the petitioner on 8.2.2001 and directed him to produce the records relating to the Mini Bus to be operated by him within three months so as to enable him to issue permit and for the running of the bus. 3. According to the petitioner, he produced all the relevant records of the Mini Bus, within the said stipulated period. Thereafter, the Secretary of the 1st Respondent conducted a timing conference twice. But the time could not be agreed among the operators. Hence, the 1st Respondent did not issue permit to the petitioner to operate the Mini Bus. The 1st Respondent did not conduct timing conference also and consequently, the Mini Bus was forced to keep idle. 4. The petitioner also stated that the 1st Respondent all of a sudden, revoked the sanction of the permit vide order 17.01.2005 on the file of the second Respondent-State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. The Tribunal, vide order dated 18.3.2010, has set aside the order of the 1st Respondent and directed the petitioner to produce all necessary documents in respect of the Mini Bus, within a period of one month from the date of the judgment and also directed the 1st Respondent and remanded the matter to the 1st Respondent to pass necessary orders of permit endorsement, if the petitioner produced all necessary documents within one month from the date of judgment. According to the petitioner, he produced valid records relating to the Mini Bus bearing Registration No.TN-67/Z-9399, on 31.3.2010 before the 1st Respondent and requested him to issue permit. However, till the date of filing of the writ petition, the 1st Respondent did not issue permit and consequently, the Mini Bus was kept idle. Since the 1st Respondent failed to comply with the order passed by State Transport Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court by filing this writ petition. 5. Heard the submissions of Mr.K.Hariharan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.R.Thirugnanam, learned Special Government Pleader for the Respondents. 6. Since the 1st Respondent failed to comply with the order passed by State Transport Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court by filing this writ petition. 5. Heard the submissions of Mr.K.Hariharan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.R.Thirugnanam, learned Special Government Pleader for the Respondents. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that though it is alleged by the 1st Respondent that the vehicle in question has been seized by the Financier, it was not so and in fact on 31.3.2010, the petitioner has produced all the relevant records before the 1st Respondent. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the orders passed by the Tribunal wherein, positive observations have been made in favour of the petitioner and in spite of specific order directing the Regional Transport Authority, Sivagangai, to pass necessary orders of permit endorsement of production of the relevant records, he has failed to do so. 8. Per contra, Mr.Thirugnanam, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents, has drawn the attention of this Court to the counter affidavit filed by the 1st Respondent and would submit that the Government published a draft Notification in G.O.Ms.No.271, Home (Transport-III) Department, dated 10.3.2010, to modify the area scheme of nationalization fixing revised guidelines for grant of mini bus permits. On account of pendency of Court cases, the draft Notification could not be approved by the Government and subsequently, resurvey of the route was conducted by the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Grade-I, Sivagangai, on 4.9.2010 and as per the said survey, the total length of the route is about 20.5 km and Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation buses are plying for a distance of 12.7 km from sector to sector and therefore, mini buses are plying for a distance of 15.9 km from sector to sector and thus, total distance overlapping on routes already by stage carriages works out to 19.2 km. It is further stated in the counter affidavit filed by the 1st Respondent that objections were also received from three persons against the grant of permit to the petitioner and hence, there is a delay on the part of the 1st Respondent in implementing the order dated 18.3.2010, passed by the second Respondent. It is further stated in the counter affidavit filed by the 1st Respondent that objections were also received from three persons against the grant of permit to the petitioner and hence, there is a delay on the part of the 1st Respondent in implementing the order dated 18.3.2010, passed by the second Respondent. The learned Special Government Pleader would further submit that steps are being taken to conduct timing conference by the 1st Respondent. 9. In response to the said submission made by the learned Special Government Pleader, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that unless and until the 1st Respondent complies with the order of the Tribunal, the said authority cannot conduct timing conference as in the event of order being passed, the petitioner is also entitled to take part in the timing conference. 10. This Court on a careful consideration of the rival submissions and the materials available on record, is of the considered view that the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner merits acceptance. 11. A perusal of the order dated 18.3.2010, passed by the Tribunal in R.P.No.10/2005 would disclose that the petitioner was directed to produce all the relevant records before the 1st Respondent for its consideration within a month from the said date and on production of such records, the 1st Respondent was directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders. In compliance of the said order, the petitioner has produced all the relevant records to the 1st Respondent as early as on 31.3.2010 and the 1st Respondent has not chosen to take decision stating that objections have been received from three other operators for grant of permit in favour of the petitioner. 12. Even according to the 1st Respondent, objections have been received from three operators and hence the said official is under obligation to put on notice, the objections raised by the said operators and elicit response from the petitioner and thereafter, they should have proceed further and pass orders. But the same has not been done. 13. Since the 1st Respondent has not passed orders in terms of the order dated 18.3.2010, passed by the Tribunal, he cannot conduct timing conference among three existing operators as in the event of final orders being passed in favour of the petitioner he is also entitled to participate in the timing conference. 14. 13. Since the 1st Respondent has not passed orders in terms of the order dated 18.3.2010, passed by the Tribunal, he cannot conduct timing conference among three existing operators as in the event of final orders being passed in favour of the petitioner he is also entitled to participate in the timing conference. 14. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:- (a) The 1st Respondent shall communicate the petitioner, the objections raised by three other operators with regard to grant of permit in favour of the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (b) The petitioner on receipt of such communication from the 1st Respondent, is at liberty to submit his explanation within a period of two weeks thereafter. (c) The 1st Respondent, on receipt of such explanation submitted by the petitioner, is directed to consider the objections as well as the explanation submitted by the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law and pass orders as expeditiously as possible and not later than four weeks from the date of receipt of the explanation submitted by the petitioner and while doing the said exercise, the 1st Respondent shall take into consideration, the order dated 18.3.2010 in R.P.No.10 of 2005 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. (d) Till such time the 1st Respondent finally adjudicate and pass orders, he shall defer the conducting of the timing conference in respect of the said route. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.