IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 23RD MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 14460 of 2007(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- K.A.KALAM, KIZHEKKEVILAKATHU HOUSE, ARASUPARAMBU, NEDUMANGADU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. M.P. SREEKRISHNAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.14460/2007. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT. P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE R.T.A. DATED 13.7.2006. EXT. P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 7.8.2006 IN M.V.A.A. NO.447/2006. EXT. P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 25.10.2006. EXT. P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY AFFIDAVIT DATED 16.12.2006. EXT. P5 : TRUE COPYOF THE ADDITIONAL AFFIDAVIT DATED 9.1.2007. EXT. P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 25.8.2006 IN M.P. NO.1489/2006 IN M.V.A.A. NO.447/2006. EXT. P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.1.2007 IN M.V.A.A. NO.447/2006. EXT. P8 : TRUE COPY OF ONE OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS DATED 31.10.2006. EXT. P9 : TRUE COPY OF ANOTHER PROCEEDINGS DATED 31.10.2006. EXT. P10 : TRUE COPY OF YET ANOTHER PROCEEDINGS DATED 31.10.2006. K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No.14460 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the12th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT Writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P1 and P7. Ext. P1 is the order of the Regional Transport Authority refusing to grant renewal of regular permit to the petitioner on the ground of overlapping on the Kollam-Alappuzha notification. The said view has been confirmed by Ext.P7 order passed by the STAT. The finding of the Tribunal is that there is some overlapping. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the KSRTC. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that there are several other operators, who are operating and petitioner alone is discriminated. Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is prepared to modify the route so as to avoid any overlapping at all. He submits that the petitioner will file a proper application modifying the route properly, so that the scheme is not offended. In such circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of as follows: WPC. 14460/2007. 2 If the petitioner files an application suitably modifying the route so as not to offend the Scheme, a decision will be taken thereon by the first respondent with notice to the third respondent. If an application is so filed, a decision will be taken thereon by the first respondent within six weeks from the date of receipt of the application. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb