IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 27TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3846 of 2010(E) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ KUNJUMON, AGED 33, S/O. VARKEY, KOZHIPATTU HOUSE, THURUTHUSSERY, ANGAMALY. BY ADVS. MR.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON, MR.M.JITHESH MENON. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.3846 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner was an existing operator conducting service on the strength of a regular permit in respect of vehicle No.KL-7/AN 1431 on the route Vattaparamba-Kanakkankadavu. As the vehicle had become old, the petitioner applied for a fresh permit producing a new vehicle, after surrendering his earlier permit. Since his application had not been considered, he was operating his vehicle on the strength of temporary permits issued by the authorities. While so, the application of the petitioner for regular permit was rejected for the reason that as per a Government Notification dated 9.5.2007, no private operator like the petitioner could be granted permit to operate services on the route. The said order of rejection was set aside by Ext.P10 judgment wpc No.3846/2010 2 holding that the draft scheme does not provide for rejection of the application. However, the application of the petitioner was not granted for the reason that the scheme had not been finalised. According to the petitioner, the scheme has been finalised on 14.7.2009. Therefore, there is no impediment in considering the petitioner's application for regular permit. The application submitted by the petitioner for the issue of temporary permit is also pending consideration of the first respondent. He prays for appropriate orders directing consideration of his applications on the merits. 2. The Government Pleader has filed a counter affidavit traversing the allegations in the Writ Petition. The Government Pleader submits that the application of the petitioner for regular permit as well as for temporary permit would be considered at the next meeting of the first respondent. 3. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is wpc No.3846/2010 3 disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the application for regular permit submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The second respondent shall pass orders on the application for temporary permit submitted by the petitioner within a period of one week from today. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/ wpc No.3846/2010 4