IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2011 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 9767 of 2011(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SMT.J.ANANDAVALLY, W/O.LATE DIVAKARAN, SARITHA BHAVAN, NEDUMGOLAM, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN SMT.R.PADMAKUMARI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY - 691 001. 2. THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM - 691 001. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.9767 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The prayer in this writ petition is to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the first respondent, Regional Transport Authority, Kollam, to take a final decision on Ext.P1 application submitted by the petitioner for the grant of a regular permit to operate a stage carriage on the route Kollam Clock Tower – Varkala within a period of 30 days and in case of delay, to take a decision on the application after circulation among the members of the Regional Transport Authority as provided for in rule 130 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules and to grant the permit immediately. Ext.P1 application for regular permit is dated 24.2.2011. The petitioner claims that it was submitted on the very same day along with Ext.P2 set of proposed timings. The petitioner has not been able to point out any provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which obliges the first respondent to dispose of the petitioner's application within one month from the date on which it is filed. Though rule 123 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules stipulates that the Regional Transport Authority may meet once in a month on such date, time and place as may be fixed by the Chairman, and also on such other necessary occasions as may be determined by the Chairman for the W.P.(C) No.9767/2011 2 dispatch of business, it is no where stipulated that an application for a regular permit should be disposed of within a month from the date of application overlooking priority and ignoring the earlier applications received from other persons for permits to operate state carriages. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that there has been undue delay or failure on the part of the respondents to consider Ext.P1 application. I, therefore, find no grounds to grant the relief prayed for. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.