Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was granted mini bus permit to operate the bus in the route Omalur Bus stand to Vellalapatty Pirivu Road by an order dated 08.02.2006, issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Salem. Pursuant to the issuance of the permit, timing conference has to be held and the timing shall be prescribed for the operation of mini bus, but the same did not take place. Hence the petitioner approached this Court and filed W.P. No.11491 of 2007 seeking for direction to the Regional Transport Authority to convene a timing conference and fix the timings for the petitioner's mini bus bearing Registration No.TN54 A 4579. 2. Pursuant to the permit given in the proceedings dated 08.02.2006, this Court passed an order dated 24.04.2007 in W.P. No.11491 of 2007, recording the assurance given by the Government Advocate, directing the respondent to convene the timing conference in accordance with law and fix the timings for the petitioner's mini bus, within a period of six weeks from the date of the passing of the order. Though such a positive direction was issued by this Court, the respondent did not convene timing conference and no timings was fixed for the operation of the mini bus of the petitioner. Thus the respondent has committed contempt of the order of this Court. 3. While so, the petitioner made a representation dated 23.05.2011 requesting the respondent to convene timing conference. It was stated therein that though two dates were given for the timing conference, the meeting did not take place. Thereafter, the petitioner filed W.P. No.9130 of 2011 seeking for direction to convene the timing conference. This Court disposed of W.P. No.9130 of 2011 on 21.04.2011 directing the respondent to pass orders on the representation dated 02.02.2011 referred to above within a stipulated period. 4. While so, the impugned order dated 27.01.2012 is passed without application of mind to all the aforesaid facts. In the impugned order, there is no reference to the grant of permit to the petitioner. In the impugned order, it is stated as if the petitioner seeks for issuance of permit and therefore, there is a need to have a joint survey along with the officials of Transport Corporation and the bus owner Association. 5. As stated above, the petitioner was issued with the permit. The permit still holds good. Proceedings dated 08.02.2006 granting permit is not cancelled. 5. As stated above, the petitioner was issued with the permit. The permit still holds good. Proceedings dated 08.02.2006 granting permit is not cancelled. In fact, this Court issued a positive order dated 24.4.2007 to fix timings for the petitioner's mini bus. This Court also noted that the petitioner paid tax and also recorded the assurance given by the Government Advocate in this regard. Hence the order dated 27.01.2012 of the respondent is arbitrary and the same was passed without application of mind to the facts of the case. 6. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. I have already held that the action of the respondents in not complying with both the direction issued by this Court dated 24.04.2007 and 21.04.2011 amounts to contempt. In fact in the circumstances I am giving one more opportunity to the respondents to comply with the order dated 24.04.2007, within a period of one month and report the matter to this Court. Otherwise this Court will be constrained to initiate suo motu contempt proceeding for not complying with the direction passed by this Court on 24.04.2007 and 21.04.2011. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed. No costs.