IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2008 / 6TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 12021 of 2008(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SHINCE P.JOSE, THAKADIPURATH, MELORAM P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, IDUKKI REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, IDUKKI. 3. THE K.S.R.T.C. REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C. FOR R3 SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT. 9.7.2007. EXT. P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM AS MVAA No. 514/2007 FILED BEFORE THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DT. 22.8.2007. EXT. P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN MVAA No. 514/2007 DT. 30.10.2007. EXT. P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN MVAA No. 514/2007 DT. 15.1.2008. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 12021 OF 2008 F = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 28th day of August 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext. P1 as confirmed by Ext. P4. 2. By Ext. P1, on the ground that the route Mathamba- Meloram applied for by the petitioner was offending the terms of the draft notification dated 9.5.2007, the application was rejected by the RTA. Against this order petitioner fled an appeal before the Tribunal and that also was dismissed by Ext. P4. It is in these circumstances the writ petition has been filed challenging Exts. P1 and P4. 3. Subsequent to the period of the draft notification the scheme has been finalised by the Govt. of Kerala which issued notification dated 6.5.2008. This Court in the judgment reported in Vijayan P.K. v. Govt. of Kerala {ILR 2008 (3) Kerala 476}, set aside clauses 4 and 19 of the said notification. Though an appeal W.P.(C) No. 12021 OF 2008 -2- has been filed by one of the respondents to the aforesaid judgment, as W.A. No. 1783/08, it is accepted by both sides that the Division Bench has not passed any interim order staying the operation of the said judgment. 4. In view of the above subsequent developments and as the RTA and the STAT relied on entirely on the draft notification of 9.5.2007, I feel that the matter needs to be reconsidered by the RTA taking into account the subsequent developments also. This shall be done within 8 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. 5. True, the petitioner has raised a contention that the overlapping mentioned in the impugned orders, is only an inevitable intersection and therefore in any case is permissible. This certainly is a matter for the RTA to take note of while the matter is taken up for consideration. 6. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the RTA, for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-