IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2009 / 1ST POUSHA 1931 W.A.No. 2901 of 2009 ------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.31116/2009 Dated 26/11/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S)//PETITIONER: --------------------- C. HAMSA, S/O.SAIDUTTY (LATE), AGED 56 YEARS, CHOLAMUKATH HOUSE, AMMINIKAD P.O., THAZHEKOD WEST, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL SMT.AMBIKA RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------- THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. NOBLE MATHEW. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A.No.2901 of 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this, the 22nd day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant is the writ petitioner. The petitioner is having a regular permit on the route Vettathur - Velapuram. He submitted an application for variation of the said permit. The said application was rejected by the Regional Transport Authority (for short, “the R.T.A.”). But, on appeal, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (for short, “the Tribunal”) allowed the petitioner's appeal and ordered to grant the variation sought for. The R.T.A., by Ext.P2 order, allowed the variation subject to settlement of timings, on 22.7.2009. Since the time schedule of the varied permit was not settled, the petitioner was not able to operate on the varied route. Therefore, he approached this Court by filing the Writ Petition seeking a mandamus to the Secretary, R.T.A., the respondent, to implement Ext.P2 decision of the R.T.A.. When the Writ Petition came up for hearing, the respondent submitted that W.A.No.2901 of 2009 - 2 - so many matters are pending before him for settlement of timings and they are dealt with according to the priority of the grant of permits, and the petitioner's case will be considered as and when his turn arises in accordance with the priority of grant. The learned Single Judge noticed the said submission and disposed of the Writ Petition with the following direction: “In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to settle timings and issue varied permit to the petitioner in accordance with the priority of grant of permit.” Dissatisfied with the direction and praying for fixing a time limit for issuance of varied permit, this Writ Appeal is filed. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant. We find nothing wrong with the stand of the respondent, which was upheld by the learned Single Judge. The persons who were granted permit earlier should be issued with the permit first, after settlement of timings. It is only just and proper that the operators are not allowed to jump the queue W.A.No.2901 of 2009 - 3 - only for the reason that they could afford to approach this Court. If that is allowed, the Secretary will find time only to cater to the needs of the operators, who could approach this Court. The result will be that, every operator will be making a beeline to this Court for getting issuance of permits granted to them. 3. In view of the above position, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal. But, it is directed that, as and when the turn of the appellant arises according to the priority, the varied permit shall be issued after settlement of timings without any further delay. Subject to this direction, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. Sd/- P. Bhavadasan, Judge. DK. (True copy)