IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 23RD MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 5061 of 2008(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- V. MADHUSOODANAN S/O.SANKARAN NAMBOOTHIRI, AGED 31 YEARS RESIDING AT VADAKKILLAM, P.O.VALIYAPOIL. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM. 2. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY KASARGODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. SECRETARY, R.T.A., KASARGODE. 4. THE KSRTC, REPRESENTED BY ITS DTO KASARGODE. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, KSRTC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =================== W.P.(C) NO.5061 OF 2008 C =========================== Dated this the 12 th day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T The prayers sought for in this writ petition are to quash Exts.P4 and P7 and to direct the 2 nd respondent to grant regular permit to the petitioner to operate on the route Achamthuruthi-Nileshwar. On an application made, enquiry was conducted and Ext.P1 report was submitted. Subsequently, pursuant to Ext.P2 order of the RTA, again enquiry was conducted and Ext.P3 report was submitted. In Ext.P3, it is stated that the overlapping in the notified route was of 300 metres and that there is no other way to Kayyur. It is also stated that this overlapping is unavoidable. However, when the RTA considered the matter again, the RTA rejected the application on the ground that the proposed route overlaps the notified route Kannur-Kasargode. 2. The matter was taken up in appeal and Ext.P5 is the WPC 5061/08 :2 : memorandum of appeal. In the appeal, the 4 th respondent filed counter affidavit, which is produced as Ext.P6. In para 4 of Ext.P6 counter affidavit, 4 th respondent also has admitted that overlapping is only of 300 metres from Cheruvathur to Kayyur Road on Kannur-Kasargode Suplimentation Scheme. The STAT finally heard the appeal and rejected the same by Ext.P7 again on the ground that the route overlaps the notified route. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised the argument that it is an inevitable overlapping and therefore it should be treated as an intersection. This argument of the learned counsel seems to be perfectly justified and he is fully supported by judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal (I.L.R. 1996 KAR 770), the relevant portion of which is extracted below for reference. 12(c) Though intersection normally means cutting across the notified route, having regard to the facts and WPC 5061/08 :3 : circumstances, it is possible to treat traversing the notified route for a short distance, as intersecting the notified route and not overlapping. Where such short traversing is within the village or town limits or is on account of traffic restrictions or regulations or is on account of want of any other access to the non-notified route, the same will normally be treated as intersections. In all other cases, traversing of even small distances on the notified route will be treated as overlapping. The reasoning adopted by the learned Judge in the aforesaid judgment is perfectly appealing and I respectfully follow the same. In view of this, Exts.P4 and P7 are liable to be set aside and I do so. Writ petition will stand allowed and the 2 nd respondent shall grant the regular permit applied for by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp