IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2008 / 2ND ASHADHA 1930 W.P(C).No. 17505 of 2008(H) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- K.A.NAZEER, S/O.ABDULLA, KIZHUVALPARAMBIL HOUSE PO.CHERUP, THRISSUR BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR 3. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KSRTC, THRISSUR 4. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BY GOVT. PLEADER, SMT. K.R. DEEPA ADV. SRI. K. PRABHAKAR, SC, KSRTC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ==================== W.P.(C) NO. 17505 OF 2008 - H ==================== Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T By Ext.P1, when an application for regular permit submitted by the petitioenr was rejected, that was called in question before the Tribunal by filing MVAA 691/2007. The appeal was disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment remanding the matter for fresh consideration if the petitioner produces a modified proposal within one month from the date of the judgment, avoiding the objectionable overlapping. Admittedly, modified proposal was not filed within one month as directed by the STAT and therefore, the RTA rejected the belated proposal by Ext.P4. It is challenging Ext.P4, the writ petition is filed. Petitioner has also now produced an order of the STAT rejecting an IA filed by him seeking enlargement of the time specified in Ext.P2. 2. All that this court need to be concerned is the correctness of Ext.P4 rendered by the RTA. Admittedly, petitioner ought to have filed the modified proposal within one month from 3/11/2007, the date on which Ext.P2 judgment was rendered. The modified proposal admittedly was WPC No. 17505/08 :2 : filed only on 28/12/2007. If that be so, the petitioner has not complied with the direction in Ext.P2 and hence Ext.P4 is not liable to be impugned on any ground. Writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp