IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2010 / 31ST ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 21593 of 2010(Y) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- NANI.K.K., VADAKKEPOYKAYIL VEEDU, ERUVATTY P.O., KADIRUR, THALASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.FAYAZ. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KANNUR REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. SECRETARY, R.T.A., KANNUR. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 21593 OF 2010 Y ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd July, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner had submitted an application for the issue of a regular permit on the route Thalassery-Mattara (via) Kuthuparamba- Mattannur-Iritty-Ulikkal-Vattianthode as a limited stop ordinary service. After enquiry the application was considered by the first respondent on 26/5/2010. Thereafter, as per Ext.P1, the petitioner's application has been rejected in the following words:- “Heard. The major portion of the route is well served. Further issue of permit in this route will lead to unhealthy competition which may cause road accidents. Hence rejected.” This writ petition is filed challenging the said order. 2. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the rejection of his applications on the ground that there would be road accidents or for the reason that a road was over saturated has been held to be illegal by the Supreme Court as well as this Court. Particular reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in Joseph Chacko v. Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam {AIR 2000 Kerala 356}. 3. In the said case, a similar order as Ext.P1 was under challenge before this Court. After considering the relevant WPC 21593/2010 2 provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as well as the various decisions on the point this Court has held that refusal of a permit on the mere ground that there was traffic congestion, over saturation and accidents was not justified. It has further been held that the primary duty of the Regional Transport Authority is to find out whether the issue of permit is necessary for the travelling public. In the light of the dictum in the above decision Ext.P1 cannot be sustained. 4. In the above circumstances Ext.P1 is set aside. The first respondent is directed to consider the application of the petitioner afresh and to pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate by placing the same before the next meeting of the first respondent or within a period of one month, whichever is earlier. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 21593/2010 3