IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2008 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 7932 of 2008(T) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ----------------- BABU SCARIA, EDATTEL HOUSE KALLOORKKAD P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY MUVATTUPUZHA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY MUVATTUPUZHA. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.V.MANOJKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 7932/2008 T APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT APPLICATION DT. 7/6/2004. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DT. 22/08/2004 GRANTING CONCURRENCE BY RTA, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DT. 23/5/2006 GRANTING CONCURRENCE BY RTA, IDUKKI. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DT. 27/11/2007. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. True copy Tga ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 7932 OF 2008 - T = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 30th May, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submitted Ext.P1, an application for regular permit. According to him concurrence of the R.T.A., Idukki has been obtained as per Ext. P3 and despite that the 1st respondent has adjourned the proceedings by Ext. P4 again for obtaining concurrence of the R.T.A., Idukki. Petitioner submits that this was unnecessary and is inordinately delaying the grant of permit. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition has been filed praying for a direction to the respondents to expedite the proceedings. 2. The learned Govt. Pleader reiterates that concurrence of R.T.A., Idukki is yet to be obtained. When Ext. P3 was pointed out to the learned Govt. Pleader, it was clarified that the petitioner had modified the route applied for including the sector Cheruthony and that necessitated concurrence from the RTA, Idukki which is still awaited. According to him, the delay in getting concurrence is what affected the consideration of Ext. P1 and passing of any final orders W.P.(C) No. 7932 OF 2008 -2- thereon. 3. In view of the modification of the route, concurrence is to be obtained from the RTA, Idukki, and until concurrence is obtained, the 1st respondent will not be in a position to pass final orders on Ext. P1. Since R.T.A., Idukki, is not a party to the writ petition this Court will not be justified in issuing any direction to that authority for expediting the matter. The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing that the 1st respondent shall, immediately on receipt of concurrence from the RTA., Idukki, expeditiously consider and pass orders on Ext. P1 application made by the petitioner for regular permit. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-