M. Ramachandran, J.

1. This batch of writ petitions were heard together and on the suggestion of h6 parties are being disposed of by a common judgment. We may refer to the facts as narrated in O.P.No.12774 of 1997 as also W.P.(C) No. 19392 of 2003.

2. Excepting W.P.(C) No.19392 of 2003 the rest of the petitions have been filed basically challenging a circular issued by the State Transport Authority dated 31-5-1997 (hereinafter referred to as Circular No. 3/97). Further Circulars had also come to be issued in the course of further developments. It may be of relevance to note that ultimately on 11-1-1999 the State Transport Authority had decided that since amendments to Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules were on the anvil, it would have been more appropriate that directives need be issued only after the Government completes such proceedings. It was therefore decided that till that time implementation of Circular No.3/97 and consequential orders are to be kept in abeyance.

3. Nevertheless the petitioners in O.P.No.12774 of 1997 and the connected cases were obliged to pursue on in view of orders that had come to be passed by this Court in certain other proceedings, presented at the instance of the Kerala Commuters' Association claimed as motions brought about in public interest. W.P(C) No.19392 of 2003 has been filed by the Kerala Commuters' Association for enforcement of Circular No.3/97 and for a direction to set aside the decision of the State Transport Authority dated 11-1-1999, referred, to earlier, whereby earlier Circulars were to be kept in abeyance.

4. Noticing that there were orders passed by a Division Bench, where under the State Government was bound to enforce Circular No.3/97, and therefore a decision on merit in the writ petitions by a Single Judge would have been inappropriate, a learned Judge had on 24-7-2003 referred a few of the writ petitions to be considered by a Division Bench or even by a Larger Bench. The above writ petitions came to be posted before the Division Bench in the aforesaid circumstances.

5. In the meanwhile, aggrieved by the orders of the Division Bench, referred to earlier, a few petitions had come to be filed before the Supreme Court pointing out that the judgments as above came to be passed without noticing the pendency of the writ petitions and without hearing the version of the affected persons. Reference had been made to review petitions filed as well. Interlocutory orders had been passed by the Supreme Court directing status' quo to be maintained in the matter. When ultimately the matter was listed for hearing, the Apex Court had found that decision on merits in the pending petitions were yet to be passed. Thereupon by order dated 20-7-2004, in Civil Appeal No.7902 of 2001 and connected appeals, Supreme Court had directed that the pending matters were to be expeditiously disposed of by the High Court. It had been further directed that after the disposal of the writ petitions the matters before the Supreme Court are to be listed.

6. It has been made clear that the High Court was to dispose of the writ petitions without being influenced in any way by the observations or expressions made so far. Therefore, we do not think it is necessary that the matter has to be placed before the Full Bench, as opined by the learned Single Judge, since the course to be followed has been advised by the Supreme Court and the matter could be dealt with, without being unduly influenced by the observations of the earlier Division Bench.

7. The first petitioner in O.P. No.12774 of 1997 is an operator of stage carriages in Kannur District. The General Secretary of an Association of Private Bus Operators is the second petitioner. Individual operators and Association of operators are the petitioners in the connected writ petitions. They challenge the proceedings of the State Transport Authority (for short S.T.A.). The effect of Circular No.3/97 would have been that the settled timings of a large number of town services,