IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2008 / 4TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 13819 of 2007(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- P.J.GEO , S/O.JOHNSON,PUTHUKKADAN HOUSE, IRINJALAKUDA. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THIRSSUR,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLETE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THRISSUR. 4. M.R.HARI, MANGALATH HOUSE, THANISSERY,IRINJALAKUDA. ADDL.R5. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHROITY, THRISSUR. (IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN IA NO. 6358/07 DATED 31.5.2007. BY ADV. SHRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI FOR R.4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR SRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR R1, 2 & 5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.13819/07 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.16/8/06 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF the APPEAL MEMORANDUM NUMBERED AS MVAA NO.483/06 FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE STAT ON 11/9/06. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DT 9/5/06 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 13/10/2006 IN MVAA NO.483/06 PASSED BY THE STAT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY FO THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 18/1/2007. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.18/1/2007 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DT 30/4/2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DT 9.5.2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DT 9.5.2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF the COMMUNCATION DT.8/5/07 ISSUE DBY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXTS. OF R4 EXT.R4(1): TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 4.11.2006 SUBMITTED BY 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 13819 OF 2007 T ==================== Dated this the 25th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T By Ext.P1, an application made by the 4th respondent for a regular permit was rejected on the ground of scheme violation. Appeal was filed and that was disposed of by Ext.P4 judgment remanding the matter for reconsideration and to assess the exact extend of overlapping. The matter was reconsidered by the RTA and by Ext.P6 permit was granted. The contention that is raised is that while granting permit as per Ext.P6, the direction of the STAT in Ext.P4 was not complied with by assessing the exact extend of overlapping. 2. An affidavit dated 13th of August, 2007 has been filed by the 5th respondent, Secretary, RTA. In para 3, it has been stated that in pursuance to the remand order, an enquiry was conducted and that the report was that there are two routes between Potta Ashramam Junction and Chalakkudy Bus stand. One of the route was through the present National Highway and the other was an old route, which is not part of the National Highway. It is also stated that on consultation with the PWD authorities, it was revealed that the old route is now handed over to them WPC 13819/07 :2 : and is maintained by the said authority. According to the 5th respondent, the permit granted to the 4th respondent is through the old route which does not form part of the national highway. If that be so, there arises no question of scheme violation. Consequently, Ext.P6 grant also cannot be violated. Though a reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner the above averment made by the 5th respondent has not been denied. From the affidavit filed by the 5th respondent, it is evident that as the route does not cover any portion of the National Highway, there is no question of any scheme violation, as alleged by the petitioner. If that be so, there is also no merit in the plea that while granting permit, direction in Ext.P4 judgment has not been complied with. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp