IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2010 / 29TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 26587 of 2010(W) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SHEELA RAMAKRISHNAN, W/O. RAMAKRISHNAN, MELAPAT HOUSE, AMAYUR, PATTAMBI. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. 3. V.M.MOHANAN NAMBOOTHIRI, S/O. VASUDEVAN NAMBOOTHIRI, VAAKKUNKARA MANA, POST KULAYANKAVU, KULUKKALLUR, PATTAMBI. SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.26587 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th August, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a stage carriage operator conducting services on the route Kolathur-Shornur. According to her, the third respondent had applied for the grant of a regular permit to conduct services on the route Mulayankavu- Nethyamangalam-Ottapalam, an intra regional route falling within the limits of the first respondent. The application was submitted without furnishing the details of the vehicle proposed to be offered. The third respondent's application was taken up on 6.7.2010 whereupon he offered a stage carriage bearing Reg.No.KL-7/AD 1346 and a permit has been granted in respect of the said vehicle, subject to settlement of timings. 2. It is contended by the petitioner that the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-7/AD 1346 is covered by a regular permit on another route, Pattambi-Ottapalam issued to the third respondent himself. The petitioner further submits that the above fact was deliberately concealed from the authority while submitting his application for the grant of wpc No.26587/2010 2 a regular permit. Since a fresh permit is not permissible to be granted in respect of a vehicle covered by another permit, it is contended that the third respondent has played fraud upon the authority. The petitioner has submitted Ext.P3 complaint to the first respondent in this regard. However, no orders have been passed thereon till date. 3. The learned Government Pleader submits that if the act complained of against the third respondent is true, certainly, that amounts to a serious misrepresentation for which appropriate proceedings as enjoined by law is liable to be initiated against him. He assures that appropriate action would be taken against the third respondent for the same. 4. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the complaint of the petitioner set out in Ext.P3 in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon initiating action against the third respondent, if the allegations are found to be true. Such action shall be taken as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of wpc No.26587/2010 3 one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/