IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 10TH APRIL 2008 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1930 RP.No. 308 of 2008(R) ------------------------------ IN WPC NO. 18010/2006 R PETITIONER IN WPC: ----------------------------- A.R.PRABHAKARAN NAIR, SINDHU VILLA, NARIYAPURAM, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAVEENDRAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------ 1. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. ADDL. R4: KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRIVANDRUM. 5. ADDL. R5: THE SECRETARY, R.T.A, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/04/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ====================================== REVIEW PETITION NO. 308 OF 2008 in W.P.(C)18010/2006 ====================================== Dated this the 10th day of April 2008 JUDGMENT The contention urged is that since the petitioner was holding a temporary permit as on 18.4.2007, he is entitled to the prosecution of Clause-4 of the notification dated 9.5.2007 and hence the rejection of his application for regular permit is wrong. I am not in a position to agree with the counsel for the reason that Clause-iv of the notification dated 9.5.2007 only provides that the permit held by the operators as on 18.4.2007 will continue as such. In this case, the petitioner held the temporary permit and continued to operate for the full period of the permit irrespective of the limitations introduced as per the notification. If that be so, he cannot claim anything more relying on the temporary permit held by him. I do not find any ground to review the judgment. Review Petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE css/