IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2008 / 2ND ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 17693 of 2008(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- SAJUMON.J.MATTATHIL, POOVAPPALLY MATTATHIL HOUSE PARAMPUZHA PO., KOTTAYAM BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT: --------------- SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY KOTTAYAM BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 17693 OF 2008 F ==================== Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T Delay in considering Ext.P3 application for replacement is what led the petitioner to file this writ petition. According to the petitioner, the reason for the refusal of the respondent to consider Ext.P3 is that the vehicle offered is a leased one. To contend that this is no ground to decline consideration of the application, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this court reported in M.Raveendran v. R.T.O and another (1995(1) KLJ 96). 2. Now that the application is pending consideration, it is incumbent on the authority to consider the application and pass orders thereon. This the respondent shall do, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. I also direct that it will be open to the respondent to call upon the petitioner to produce additional documents, if any, required for consideration of Ext.P3. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp