IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 5TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 14TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 25095 of 2007(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.VIJAYAN, KUNIYIL HOUSE, CHOMBALA P.O. VATAKARA. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, VATAKARA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, VATAKARA. 3. K.S.R.T.C., REP. BY ITS DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, VATAKARA. R1 & 2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR R3 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI K.PRABHAKARAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/09/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 2727 OF 2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 25095 of 2007(K) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS - P1 - COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 26.8.2006 IN MVAA 432/06. P2 - COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DT. 25.4.2007. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) 25095 & 2727 of 2007 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: SEPTEMBER 5, 2008 JUDGMENT In W.P.(C) 25095 of 2007 the petitioner is seeking implementation of Ext.P1 judgment of the STAT in MVAA 432/2006. By this judgment the appeal against the order of rejection of his application for a regular permit on the route Vatakara - Peringathur (via) Chorode, Kainatty, Orkatteri, Malolmukku, Chirayilpeedika, Thottolikkara, Monthal Kadau land and Mekunnu was rejected on the ground that it overlaps the supplementation scheme over a distance exceeding 10 percent of the route applied for. The KSRTC has filed WP(C) 2727/2007 challenging the aforesaid judgment as according to it, the judgment is in violation of the supplementation scheme and the draft notification dated 6.5.2006. 2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) 25095 of 2007 made a W.P.(C) 25095 & 2727 of 2007 2 limited request that the petitioner be permitted to make a modified proposal excluding the objectionable overlapping and that the same may be directed to be considered by the RTA, Vatakara. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned standing counsel for the KSRTC and the learned Government Pleader, I am satisfied that taking into account the subsequent developments including the issuance of the notification dated 6.5.2008, petitioner should be granted an opportunity to make a modified proposal as sought for by him. 4. Accordingly this writ petition is disposed of quashing the decision of the RTA dated 15.7.2006 rejecting the application of the petitioner and the judgment of the STAT in MVAA 432/2006. Petitioner will be free to make a modified proposal excluding the objectionable overlapping within 30 days from today, in which case, the same shall be W.P.(C) 25095 & 2727 of 2007 3 taken up and considered on merits by the RTA, Vatakara, with notice to all affected parties including the petitioners. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-