IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2011 / 21ST ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 14001 of 2011(A) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ VIJAY, NANDIKATTU HOUSE PANANGAD PO, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN, SMT.R.PADMAKUMARI. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ALAPPUZHA , REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 688 001. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,ALAPPUZHA 688 001. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.14001/2011 A APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE VARIATION APPLICATION DTD. 6/09/2010. P1A: COPY OF THE CHALLAN DTD. 6/09/2010. P2: COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 8/10/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 14001 OF 2011 A ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th July, 2011. JUDGMENT The petitioner is a stage carriage operator conducting services on the route Cherthala – Ernakulam Kaloor with stage carriage bearing registration No: KL 4/Q 9559. According to the petitioner, his services have to traverse the Kadavanthra – Kaloor road to reach the Ernakulam Kaloor bus stand. Thereafter, while returning to Cherthala he has to leave Kaloor, traverse M.G road and proceed to Cherthala after touching the Kadavanthra junction. 2. The petitioner submitted Ext.P1 application for variation of his permit condition by the avoiding return trip through M.G road to Kadavanthra. The petitioner wanted to return to Kadavanthara through the Kaloor - Kadavanthara road itself. The complaint of the petitioner is that no orders have been passed on Ext.P1 so far. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent. It is the case of the first respondent that an enquiry was not conducted through the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Ernakulam on the application submitted by the petitioner. According to the first respondent, curtailment of the route proposed by the petitioner would result in reduction of the route length by 7 kms. Such curtailment could be granted only after WPC 14001/2011 2 varying timings of the petitioner also. Therefore, the matter required detailed consideration by the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam before any orders could be passed. Therefore, along with the report of the Regional Transport Officer, Ernakulam, the entire matter is proposed to be placed before the next meeting of the Regional Transport Authority. 4. In view of the undertaking in the counter affidavit to the effect that Ext.P1 application along with all necessary reports are proposed to be placed before the next meeting of the Regional Transport Authority, I do not think any further orders are necessary to be issued in this matter. It is sufficient that the above undertaking in the counter affidavit is recorded. 5. In the above circumstances this writ petition is disposed of recording the undertaking of the first respondent contained in the affidavit dated 5-7-2011, referred to above, and directing the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P1 application during the next meeting itself. Writ petition is disposed of as above. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 14001/2011 3 WPC 14001/2011 4