IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2010 / 14TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17312 of 2010(L) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ BABY ANTOS, PARAYIL HOUSE, EDAMURUKKU PO, PALA. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, IDUKKI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,IDUKKI. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.17312 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a stage carriage operator conducting services on the route Thulappilly-Mankulam on the strength of a regular permit issued in respect of a stage carriage vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-35/2255 as a Limited Stop Ordinary Service (LSOS). The petitioner's route is an inter regional route extending over the regions of Idukki and Kottayam and has a route length of 170 Kms. The petitioner sought a variation of his permit by curtailing a portion of the route from Thulappilly to Karimkallumoozhy which is a distance of 15 kms. On such curtailment, the route length of the petitioner would be reduced by 15 kms. and it would come within the limits of a fast passenger service. However, for the purpose of curtailment of the route, concurrence of the sister authority is required. Since such concurrence would entail loss of time, the petitioner modified his request for variation by giving up his request for curtailment and sought for the issue of wpc No.17312/2010 2 permit as a super fast service. The revised request submitted by the petitioner is Ext.P1. The complaint of the petitioner is that without considering his revised proposal, the respondent has directed concurrence to be obtained from the sister authority on the mistaken impression that such concurrence was necessary. 2. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the concurrence that was earlier sought is not necessary for the reason that the curtailment sought by him was not being pressed. In view of the above, he requests for a consideration of his application without seeking concurrence as per the direction contained in Ext.P2. The learned Senior Government Pleader has no objection to such a direction being issued, in view of the submission made by the counsel that the curtailment was not being pressed. 3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is not pressing the curtailment that was earlier sought is recorded. Ext.P2 is set aside. The respondent is directed to consider the request of the petitioner evidenced herein by Ext.P1 afresh, in wpc No.17312/2010 3 accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon 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. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/