dated 20.5.2016, warrants any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Admittedly, Ext.P3 proceedings is issued without notice of hearing to the respective operators and to represent their cases in the timing conference, as provided under law. On a reading of the impugned order, it is categoric and clear that, it was based on the judgment rendered by this court in W.P.(C) No.10811/2016 filed by the additional respondents, the respondent has passed the impugned order. Even though it is mentioned thereunder that, a conference of route operators was constituted on 11.5.2016, 12.8.2016 and finally on 25.5.2016, the operators neither appeared at the conference in order to submit any statements or remarks in this regard, however, as provided under proviso to rule 212(3), since the variation of timings was likely to affect the operators, individual notices should have been issued. True, the additional respondents have a case that it was done purposefully by the respondent to ensure that, the same is set aside by the Tribunal or this court. However the same is a factual circumstance, which, I do not propose to consider in this proceeding. But the fact remains that since no notice is issued to the respective operators
