IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2008 / 11TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 25949 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ HARIHARASUTHAN, S/O.PARTHASARATHY, MULLAMPATHIL HOUSE, KADAVATH, PARALI, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.25949/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT Ext.P1 is the permit issued to the petitioner, which was valid up to 23.3.2006 and according to the petitioner his renewal application is pending before the first respondent. However, the matter is still pending for the reason that the concurrence of the RTA Kozhikode and Malappuram are awaited. According to the petitioner, concurrence was rejected by the RTA Kozhikode on an earlier occasion and the STAT allowed his revision and the matter is still pending before the RTA Kozhikode without any final order. Similar is the position regarding Malappuram where also matter is pending. 2. In the meantime the petitioner operating his vehicle on the basis of temporary permits, the last of which is WP(c).No.25949/2008 2 Ext.P3 valid up to 27.8.2008. Though he has filed Ext.P4 for issue of the temporary permit, orders have not been passed. Therefore this writ petition has been filed. 3. The first prayer in this writ petition is to direct that the first respondent shall expedite the proceedings for the renewal of the regular permit. In view of the fact that the concurrence of the RTA Malappuram and Kozhikode are awaited, it is directed that the first respondent shall get the concurrence from the RTA Malappuram and Kozhikode expedited and orders on the renewal application shall be passed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 4. Regarding the temporary permit application there arises a difficulty. In view of Rule 260A of the KMV Rules, a vehicle can be operated as Fast Passenger Service only for 5 years. In this case, that period has already expired and Petitioner does not have a new vehicle for deployment. If WP(c).No.25949/2008 3 that be so, the rule stands in the way. Therefore, the only direction that is possible is that, Ext.P4 will be considered on the petitioner producing necessary document, satisfying the requirements of Rule 260A of the Rules. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.25949/2008 4