IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2008 / 23RD ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 17220 of 2008(Y) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------------- BIJU KAIPPAREDAN, KAIPPAREDAN HOUSE, UZHAVOOR, KOTTYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRASPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE SECRETRY, REGIONAL TRASPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.V. MANOJKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/07/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.17220/2008 Y APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE AMVI, PALA DTD. 21/05/2007. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 3/07/2007 ADDRESSED TO THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 6/12/2007 IN WPC.NO.33436 OF 2007. EXT.P4: COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT HELED ON 7/02/2008. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 10/04/1996 IN WA. NO.571 OF 1996. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 7/02/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 17220 OF 2008 Y = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 14th day of July 2008 J U D G M E N T Ext. P6 proceedings of the RTA is under challenge. Petitioner submits that he is a member of the Kottayam District Panchayat. According to him, he filed a complaint dated 3.7.2007, for traffic reform in so far as Uzhavoor town is concerned. That complaint of the petitioner was forwarded to the Supdt. of Police by Ext. P2. Ext. P1 enquiry report was also submitted recommending his application, submits the counsel for the petitioner. Still there was delay in the matter and that made the petitioner to file W.P.(C) No. 33436/07 before this Court resulting in Ext. P3 judgment directing consideration of the matter on an expeditious basis. It is stated that it was thereupon that the RTA considered the matter and by Ext. P6 rejected the same, directing the petitioner to apply for variation of permit since the traffic arrangement will come under variation. 2. A reading of Ext. P6 discloses that the RTA seems to have W.P.(C) No. 17220 OF 2008 -2- taken the application of the petitioner as one made by an existing operator, though in reality it is not so. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies on Ext. P5 judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 571 of 1996 where according to him it has been held that such traffic reforms will not amount to variation as is mentioned in Ext. P6. 3. A reading of Ext. P6 proceedings of the RTA shows that the RTA has proceeded on the misunderstanding that the application is by a permit holder. Therefore, Ext. P6 needs to be reconsidered and for that purpose Ext. P6 will stand set aside. The RTA shall reconsider the application made by the petitioner for traffic reforms at Uzhavoor in the light of Ext. P5 judgment in W.A. No. 571 of 1996. Revised orders as above shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 8 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-