IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2009 / 3RD MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 2528 of 2009(A) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.JAYACHANDRAN, AGED 38, S/O.JANAKI AMMA KAIPPULLI HOUSE, P.O.AYYAPPANKAVU, KOZHUKULLI, TRISSUR-680751. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. 3. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER. 4. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. BY SC SRI. JHONSON P JOHN BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No.2528 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner states that he applied for a regular permit on the route Ummini-Palakkad Town Bus Stand. Initially, the application was rejected on the ground of objectionable overlapping. That was challenged before the Tribunal by filing MV(AA).No.777/07. That appeal was disposed of by Ext.P9 judgment directing the first respondent to consider whether it was an inevitable overlapping in view of the traffic regulations. The matter was reconsidered and by Ext.P10, their request was once again rejected. The appeal filed to the Tribunal as MV(AA).No.694/08 was dismissed as per Ext.P13 judgment. It is challenging Exts.P10 and P13 that the writ petition is filed. 2. As already noticed, by Ext.P9 judgment rendered by the Tribunal in MV(AA).No.777/07, the Tribunal directed WP(c).No.2528/09 2 the first respondent to consider whether the overlapping in question was an inevitable one, in view of the traffic regulations. A perusal of Ext.P10 proceedings of the RTA shows that this issue has not been considered but the permit was rejected on the ground of objection by the KSRTC and objectionable overlapping. It is this judgment which has been confirmed by the Tribunal also in Ext.P13. It is obvious that what was directed to be considered in Ext.P9 judgment has not been considered in Ext.P10 or in Ext.P13. For that reason itself Exts.P10 and P13 will stand set aside. The matter is remanded to the first respondent who shall reconsider the application made by the petitioner in the light of the directions as contained in Ext.P9 judgment rendered by the Tribunal. Orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 8 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) vi JUDGE