IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2010 / 28TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 29322 of 2010(M) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ A.M.ASHRAF, S/O.MEERANNAN, MUBARAK MANZIL,VANDIPERIYAR. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT (B) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 29322 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner who is a stage carriage operator filed this writ petition on being aggrieved by Ext.P4. The petitioner has submitted Ext.P2 representation dated 1.2.2010 under Rule 334 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle rules seeking exemption from operation of Rule 289. The said request of the petitioner was rejected as per Ext.P4 order dated 30.8.2010. The contention of the petitioner is that Ext.P4 is an order passed without any application of mind and, it is unsustainable on the reason that under similar circumstances, exemption has been granted to the stage carriages operated by the KSRTC, as is obvious from Ext.P3. In the circumstances, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that Ext.P4 requires re-consideration. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader as well. Ext.P4 would reveal that it is an order passed without application of mind as it contains no reason at all for rejection of the request. Evidently, as per Ext.P3 exemption WPC.29322/2010 : 2 : has been granted to the stage carriages operated by the KSRTC. In the said circumstances I am of the view that the matter requires re-consideration. It is also to be noted that the said order was passed without looking into subsequent amendments brought in Clause C of sub rule 2 of Rule 273. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the petitioner was afforded with an opportunity, he could have brought it to the attention of the petitioner the said relevant aspects. In view of the foregoing reasons that I am of the view that Ext.P4 requires re-consideration. To enable the respondent to consider Ext.P2 representation submitted by the petitioner in a proper manner after taking into account Ext.P3 and also other relevant aspects, Ext.P4 is set aside. Accordingly, the respondent is directed to take a fresh decision on Ext.P2 representation after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. This shall be done expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge