IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2009 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15665 of 2009(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------- I.C.SHAJIL KUMAR, S/O.CHANDRAN, IRUDUKAVIL HOUSE, SUKAPURAM, KALADITHARA, EDAPPAL, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, 'TRANSPORT BHAVAN', THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R3 BY ADV.SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN SC FOR KSRTC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.15665 of 2009 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. The writ petition is taken up for disposal by consent of parties. 2. The petitioner applied for regular permit on the route Ponnani-Kozhikode-Guruvayur, which is an inter-district route. The Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram was treated as the primary authority, because major portion of the said route lies within its jurisdiction. 3. A regular permit was issued, subject to counter signature by the Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur and Regional Transport Authority, Kozhikode. The Regional Transport Authority, Kozhikode rejected the application and an appeal was preferred before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. During the pendency of the appeal, an exclusion notification was issued by the Government on W.P.(C).No.15665 of 2009 :: 2 :: 9.5.2009 under Section 99 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Though the petitioner contends that since the primary authority has been interdicted from issuing a permit, he is entitled to be treated as an existing operator and therefore, excluded from the purview of the notification dated 9.5.2009. The said stand was not accepted by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and again rejected by this court as evidenced by Ext.P1 judgment. But, in Ext.P2, a Bench of this court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the appeal, with liberty to file a fresh application for counter signature. The fresh application for counter signature filed by the petitioner was again rejected and pursuant thereto, an appeal was preferred before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, which was originally remanded to the 1st respondent to be considered along with Ext.P5 judgment. Subsequently, the application for counter signature was again rejected, taking note of a draft notification issued on 15.9.2008, which restricts the grant of a new permit on any W.P.(C).No.15665 of 2009 :: 3 :: route which is overlapping another route as stated in the Annexure to the notification. The said order was affirmed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal as per Ext.P5, which has been challenged in this writ petition. 4. The limited ground taken up by the petitioner in relation to Ext.P5 is that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal should have directed the application for counter signature to be considered, at least after the finalisation of the statutory notification dated 15.9.2008. 5. I find force in this submission. In fact, such a course has been adopted by the same tribunal in the case of Ext.P6 order. It is quite possible that some of the routes, which are mentioned in the Annexure to the statutory notification dated 15.9.2008, might be varied to the benefit of certain operators, who might have either sought for a permit or counter signature, in which case, it is only appropriate that the application for counter signature be taken up by the 1st respondent, after the finalisation of the W.P.(C).No.15665 of 2009 :: 4 :: notification dated 15.9.2008 or after the same lapses, if so, on expiry of the statutorily prescribed period. 6. Accordingly, Ext.P5 is set aside to the extent to which the petitioner's appeal has been dismissed in toto. There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's application for counter signature, after the finalisation of the draft notification dated 15.9.2008 or after it lapses, if it so lapses. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge