IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 26TH OCTOBER 2009 / 4TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 26318 of 2009(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- THOMAS CHACKO,MANNANAL HOUSE LAKKATTOOR.P.O.,KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ THE SECRETARY,REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.S.MOHAMMED HASHIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 26318 of 2009(H) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT VALID TILL 19.9.2009. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY PERMIT DATED 16.9.2009. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... W.P(C) No. 26318 of 2009 ................................................. Dated this the 26th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner filed Ext.P2 application for reissue of a temporary permit. Petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that the same is not being considered by the respondents. The learned Government Pleader on behalf of the respondent would contend that in so far as the purpose mentioned in Ext.P2 for seeking temporary permit is over there is no point in considering the application now. I am of opinion that that is a matter which the respondent should consider while disposing of the application. When an application is filed, the respondent has a duty to pass orders on the same either way. Accordingly this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment in accordance with law. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs