IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2009 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WA.No. 444 of 2007() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.32571/2006 Dated 16/01/2007 .................... APPELLANT (PETITIONER IN THE WRIT PETITION): ------------------------------------------------ P.V. RATHEESH, H.NO.32/110, PULLAMTHURUTHIL, EROOR P.O., THRIPUNITHURA. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C., ERNAKULAM. 4. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SHRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------- WA. No.444 OF 2007 ---------------------------------------- Dated, the 9th December, 2009 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge who has confirmed the orders of the S.T.A.T holding that the appellant is not entitled to a regular city permit for operation in the route Aluva - Poothotta through Ernakulam. After hearing both sides and after going through Rule 2(ca), we find that the route on both permissible points exceed more than 5 kilometres from the city limit. Consequently, all the authorities including the Single Judge held that appellant is not entitled to a regular city permit in the very same route. However, counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that for the last around 8 years, the appellant is allowed to operate under temporary permit in the very same route. If there is a temporary need, WA No.444/07 -:2:- then it is for the RTO to extend the temporary permit. We do not think there is any need to consider the appellant's entitlement for continued temporary permit because it is a matter for the RTO to decide every time when application is filed. However, we make it clear that if there is need, as far as possible, the RTO should not deny temporary permit which will lead to idling of a vehicle purchased at high cost and will also lead to loss of employment of 4 – 5 people. However, the appellant should be cautious in making investment for new vehicle because the permit is not a regular one. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- WA No.444/07 -:3:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. O.P.No. JUDGMENT Dated:..