IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2007 / 2ND SRAVANA 1929 WP(C).No. 20373 of 2007(A) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------ VARGHESE C.L., AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. LONAPPAN, CHAKKALAKKAL HOUSE, THANISSERY, P.O. MANAPPADY. BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR. 2. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.R. SABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/07/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)NO.20373/07 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF REGULAR PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30.9.2005. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 05.04.2006 IN W.P.(C)NO.8648/06. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)NO.27691/06 DATED 15.11.2006. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF PERMIT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER ON 3.03.2007. EXT.P5: TRUE COY OF JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.477/07 DATED 23.3.2007. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF REQUEST DATED 27.06.2007 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF ROUTE SKETCH PREPARED BY MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR SHOWING THE ROUTE MAP (OFFICIAL). TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C)NO. 20373 OF 2007 ------------------------------------ DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF JULY, 2007 JUDGMENT By Ext.P5 judgment, the permit issued to the petitioner was set aside on the ground of overlapping of notified route. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Ext.P6 request for consideration of his application avoiding the overlapping portion. The petitioner now seeks a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P6. After having heard the learned Government pleader also, I direct the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P6 request of the petitioner in its next meeting. However, I make it clear that I have not considered the right of the petitioner under law and it would be for the 2nd respondent to consider the same in accordance with the provisions of law. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd