IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 12TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 23207 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------- 1. V.P.SUKUMARI, VALIYAPARAMBIL NADAKKAVU P PO., ERNAKULAM. 2. MAARIAMMA THOMAS, KUMBALAMTHANATHU HOUSE, AYARKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY KOTTAYAM REP. BY ITS SECRETARY KOTTAYAM 2. SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY KOTTAYAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.23207/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT 21.12.2006. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13/7/2007 IN WPC NO.14567/07. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT 7.12.2007. EXTS.P4 & P4(a): TRUE COPIES OF THE JUDGMENTS DT 19.2.2008 AND 29.2.2008 IN MVAA NO.91/08 AND MVAA NO.93/08. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT of the AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE RESPONDENT SCHEDULED FOR 6.3.2008. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT INWPCNO.8458 OF 2008 DT 25.3.2008. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT 3.4.2008. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 23207 OF 2008 K ==================== Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are aggrieved by Ext.P5. Petitioners applied for super fast permit on the route Pulpally-Changanacherry having a total distance of 454 kms. Initially, by Ext.P1, the 1st respondent decided to seek concurrence of the sister RTA's. That was challenged before this court resulting in Ext.P2 judgment in WP(C) No.14567/07. In that judgment, this court held that the application for regular permit will be considered, if the petitioners are otherwise eligible, subject to counter signature by the sister RTAs. 2. Accordingly, the matter was considered by the RTA and by Ext.P3, the applications were rejected. That was challenged before the Tribunal by filing separate appeals resulting in Exts. P4 and P4(a) judgments. In that judgment, Tribunal set aside the order of rejection and directed grant of regular permit subject to counter signature by sister RTAs as Super Deluxe Service. 3. The matter was included in the meeting of the RTA held on 6/3/2008 as is seen from Ext.P5. However, the matter was adjourned WPC 23207/08 :2 : indefinitely and thereupon the petitioners again approached this court and filed WP(C) No.8458/08. That writ petition was disposed of recording the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the matter was already included in the agenda of the RTA meeting scheduled on 3/4/2008. It was directed that in the event the meeting does not materialise, the matter will be considered by circulation. 4. Petitioners now submit that the matter was considered in the RTA meeting held on 03/04/2008 and was again adjourned by Ext.P7 stating that the inspection of the vehicles is necessary, that it was necessary to ascertain the advance reservation facility and that the route is not specific as to the exact places to be traversed by the service. In so far as the requirement of inspection of vehicle and ascertainment of the advance reservation facility is concerned, these necessarily are matters which arise for consideration after the grant is made. In so far as the line of travel between the Kakkanad-Mulamthuruty and Piravom- Koothattukulam, the details of which are required to be furnished is concerned. These are areas which fall with the RTA Ernakulam and Muvattupuzha and therefore, are matters which arise for consideration at the stage of counter signature. WPC 23207/08 :3 : 5. Therefore, in my view, none of these reasons mentioned in Ext.P7 justify an indefinite adjournment as has now been done. In view of this, I dispose of this writ petition quashing Ext.P7 and directing that the 1st respondent shall implement Exts.P4 and P4(a) judgments, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp