IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2008 / 27TH POUSHA 1929 WA.No. 132 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.31477/2007 Dated 31/10/2007 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER IN WPC: ----------------------------- ARUN RAJI, ANANDA BHAVAN, KURUMPAKARA, PATHANAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS IN WPC: -------------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SHRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. KOSHY & K. HEMA, JJ. -------------------------------------------- W.A. No. 132 of 2008 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT Koshy, J: The State Transport Appellate Authority, by Ext.P4 order, rejected the appeal by the appellant-petitioner confirming the order dismissing his application for regular permit. When Ext.P4 was challenged, learned single Judge rejected the petition on the ground of delay. Ext.P4 is dated 26th May, 2007. Copy was obtained in July, 2007. Writ petition was filed in October, 2007. We are of the opinion that there is no undue delay in filing the writ petition. No time limit is prescribed for filing writ petition. We cannot say that three months' time gap is a ground for rejecting a writ petition. Of course, unexplained undue delay only can be taken as a ground for dismissing the writ petition for lapses. 2. It is the contention of the appellant that when he applied for regular permit and when his application was considered by RTA, Ext.P2 notification was in force. It was not considered by the Tribunal. But, tribunal relied on the notification dated 8.5.2007 which came into effect only on 4.5.2007. According to the appellant, his right W.A.No.132/2008 -2- was crystallized before the same and he relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Sharif Ahmad and others v. R.T.A., Meerut and others (AIR 1978 SC 207). According to him as per Ext.P2 notification in the route he applied there was only permissible overlapping of the nationalised route. In the circumstances of the case, we direct the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, the 3rd respondent herein, to consider that point also. Hence, Ext.P4 is set aside and the 3rd respondent shall consider whether the appellant is entitled to get permit on the basis of the notification which was in force when he applied and when RTA considered his application or when order of RTA rejecting his application on 8.12.2006. Both parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 22.2.2008. Appeal is allowed by way of remand. Sd/- J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE. Sd/- K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.