IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 5TH JULY 2010 / 14TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17182 of 2010(W) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ RENI PETER, PULINILKUMKALAYIL HOUSE, KOTHANALLOOR.P.O, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KASARGODE. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.17182 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a stage carriage operator. He holds two regular permits to conduct opposite services with alternate start and halt on the long distance inter-regional route Panjikkal-Kottayam. The permits have been issued to stage carriages bearing Reg.Nos.KL-05/U 100 and KL- 05/S 1010. The service is being operated as a Limited Stop Ordinary Service ('LSOS' for short). Since the validity of the permits were to expire on 29.5.2006, the petitioner had filed applications for renewal of the permits for a period of five years. Since concurrence had to be obtained from the sister authorities, such concurrences were sought for the renewal that was applied for. Accordingly, as per Ext.P1 series documents, concurrence from the sister authorities have been obtained. 2. While so, even before concurrences from the sister authorities were obtained, the respondent took up the petitioner's application for consideration and rejected his wpc No.17182/2010 2 request for renewal of the permits finding that since the route length exceeds 140 kms., it was not permissible for the permit to be renewed as an LSOS. The petitioner challenged the decision of the respondent before this Court in W.P.(C) No.112 of 2007. This Court considered the petitioner's writ petition along with several other writ petitions that raised similar issues and disposed of all the cases by a common judgment dated 30.3.2007. As per the said judgment, Ext.P2, the respondent as well as the other authorities were directed to consider the applications for renewal afresh, permitting the petitioner and others to request for a change in the class of service, consistent with the route length. Pursuant to Ext.P2 judgment, the petitioner submitted a request before the respondent seeking renewal of his permit as a 'Super Express'. Though the request was submitted as early as on 16.8.2007, no orders have been passed thereon. Meanwhile, the petitioner has been conducting services on the strength of successive temporary permits issued to him. The enquiries of the petitioner reveal that the reason for the delay in issuing his regular permits is because of wpc No.17182/2010 3 the fact that the respondents have again addressed the sister authorities for concurrence for the purpose of conversion of the service as a 'Super Express'. 3. According to the counsel for the petitioner, in view of the fact that concurrence of the sister authorities have already been obtained as evidenced by Ext.P1 series, it was absolutely unnecessary for the respondent to have undertaken the time consuming process of obtaining fresh concurrences from the sister authorities regarding conversion as a 'Super Express'. 4. The learned Senior Government Pleader points out that Ext.P2 contains a direction to the authority to seek concurrence from the sister authorities before granting renewal of the regular permit. Therefore, it is submitted that the concurrence sought for as per Ext.P3 is in compliance with the direction of this Court in Ext.P2 judgment. 5. Ext.P2 judgment is passed in a batch of writ petitions, which included the writ petition filed by the petitioner also. The direction issued in Ext.P2 reads as follows: wpc No.17182/2010 4 “The RTAs. are directed to pass orders on concurrence within six weeks from the date of production of copy of this judgment and within the following six weeks final orders should be passed by RTAs. on renewal of permits. I make it clear that concurrence and renewal should be considered based on the class of service which petitioners want to operate, which will be informed by petitioners. “ The above direction has been issued as a common direction in all the writ petitions that were disposed of as per Ext.P2 judgment. The direction has been issued obviously for the reason that in many of the writ petitions that were disposed of together, concurrence of the sister authorities had not been obtained. However, the direction does not stipulate that even in cases where concurrence of the sister authorities have already been obtained, such concurrences were to be obtained afresh. In the present case, as noticed earlier, as per Ext.P1 series, the sister authorities have issued concurrence for the renewal of the petitioner's permit. I also notice that some of the concurrences have been issued even after the date of Ext.P2 judgment. Therefore, regarding the application for renewal submitted by the petitioner, the wpc No.17182/2010 5 sister authorities have already granted concurrence as per Ext.P11. In the above circumstances, what remains to be done is to consider the application for renewal of permits submitted by the petitioner within the time limit stipulated by Ext.P2 judgment. Since the stipulated time limit of six weeks from the date of concurrence, is already over, it is necessary that the respondent considers the petitioner's application without further delay and takes a decision thereon expeditiously. 6. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider the applications for renewal submitted by the petitioner in respect of his vehicle referred to above in the light of the concurrence evidenced herein by Ext.P1 series and to pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/