IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 4TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 13306 of 2006(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MASHA.P., THAZHATHU VEEDU, KILIKOLLOOR P.O., KOLLAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.L.MURALEEDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (RURAL) ATTINGAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (RURAL), ATTINGAL. 3. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C, ATTINGAL. 4. M.SHOWKATHALI, SHAIJU MANZIL, PERUMKULAM P.O., MANANAKKU, ATTINGAL. 5. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR - R4 SRI.T.RAVIKUMAR, SC, KSRTC FOR R.3 SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C. FOR R3 SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL FOR R1,2,5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 13306/06 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF SUBSTITUTE TEMPORARY PERMIT. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF DECISION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT TAKEN AT ITS MEETING HELD ON 17.10.2005 AS ITEM NO.12. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE S.T.A.T., ERNAKULAM IN M.V.A.A.NO.41/2006. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 28.3.2006 IN M.V.A.A.NO.41/2006 OF S.T.A.T., ERNAKULAM. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – VARKALA SUPPLEMENTATION SCHEME. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 13306 OF 2006-H ----------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The petitioner applied for a regular permit on the route Attingal – Varkala, (via) Alamcode, Kallambalam and Palachira. It was in the surrendered vacancy of the stage carriage bearing registration No.KL- 16 5958. The R.T.A., Thiruvananthapuram (Rural) by Ext.P2 proceedings dated 17.10.2005, rejected the application on the ground that it overlaps Thiruvananthapuram – Varkala supplementation scheme. The petitioner appealed by filing Ext.P3 appeal. The said appeal was dismissed by Ext.P4 judgment by the S.T.A.T. The Tribunal found that the violation of the supplementation scheme is admitted. In view of the decision in Rahul Tom v. K.S.R.T.C [2001 (3) KLT 261], overlapping of supplementation scheme is not permissible. Relying on that decision, the appeal was dismissed. This Writ Petition was filed, challenging Exts.P2 and P4. 2. I am bound by Rahul Tom's case (supra), which was rendered WPC 13306/06 2 by a Division Bench of this Court. Since there is admitted violation, the application for permit was rightly rejected. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. 26th September, 2008. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. Nm/