IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2008 / 5TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 16218 of 2008(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- REJIMON MATHEW, PANAMKALAYIL HOUSE, ERAVIMANGALAM, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM. 4. THE K.S.R.T.C., REP. BY MANAGING PARTNER, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C. FOR R4 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.16218/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DT 7.8.07. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM IN MVAA NO.771/07 DT 27.11.2007. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN MVAA NO.771/07 DT 10.12.2007. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.5061/2008 DT 12.2.2008. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 16218 OF 2008 E ==================== Dated this the 27th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P1 and P3. 2. By Ext.P1, permit was rejected to the petitioner on the ground of objectionable overlapping. That order was confirmed by the STAT in Ext.P3. According to the petitioner, it was only an intersection. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this court in WP(C) No.33878/06 and connected cases on the 11th of August 2008. By that judgment, taking note of the judgment rendered by this court in WP(C) No.21725/08 and connected cases setting aside Clause 4 and 19 of the scheme notification of 6/5/2008, Division Bench has directed reconsideration of the matter by RTA, having regard to the subsequent developments. In this case, since the request of the petitioner was rejected on the ground of objectionable overlapping, I feel the petitioner is entitled to similar treatment. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of quashing Exts. P1 and P3 and directing that the 2nd respondent shall consider the application WPC 16218/08 :2 : of the petitioner resulting in Ext.P1, taking into account the developments subsequent to Exts. P1 and P2. I clarify that I have not pronounced on the merits of the claim raised by the petitioner and it is entirely for the RTA to deal with the matter. Needless to say that notice will be given to the KSRTC also. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp