IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2009 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 36396 of 2007(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- K.K.BABU, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, AGED 30 YEARS, KALAMPARAMBU HOUSE, MALAKKULAM, MELARCODE P.O., ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 703. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. 3. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PALAKKAD. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER,SRI.TEK CHAND R3 BY ADV. SHRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC : 36396/07 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : ROUGH SKETCH OF THE ROUTE. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 7.1.05 IN MVAA 724/05 EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 9.3.06 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 10.8.06 IN WPC : 21271/06. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 21.8.06 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.25275/B/66/PW DATED 26.8.96. EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO.41971-TB3/65/PW DATED 21.2.96. EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THE STAT DT.16.1.07 IN MVAA 684/07 /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 36396 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner submitted an application for a stage carriage permit for the route Olippara – Palakkad. That has been rejected by Ext.P5 order on the ground that the route overlaps a notified route. Petitioner filed an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, who also dismissed the appeal by Ext.P8 order. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P5 and P8. Petitioner’s contention is that the notification was issued in the year 1966. According to the petitioner, the route for which the petitioner applied for permit is along the National Highway in respect of which there is no notification and the National Highway came in to existence only in 1977 to which a 1966 notification cannot apply. Therefore, according to the petitioner, that National Highway does not form part of the notification issued in 1966. As such, the finding that the petitioner’s route overlaps the notified route as per the notification in 1966 is clearly unsustainable is the contention raised by the petitioner. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned WPC :36396/07 -:2:- Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the KSRTC. 3. On a reading of Exts.P5 and P8 it is abundantly clear that, this contention of the petitioner had not been considered either by the RTA or the Tribunal. Of course, the learned Government Pleader would take a contention that, that contention was not raised at all. Petitioner would contend that it was raised. Even assuming that it was not raised, I am of opinion that, the RTA should consider that question insofar as that would be a relevant consideration for the purpose of deciding whether the petitioner’s application should be allowed or not. Accordingly, Exts.P5 and P8 are quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner in the light of the present contention of the petitioner as stated above. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner, the KSRTC and all other affected persons. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ttb WPC :36396/07 -:3:-