IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2008 / 20TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 29326 of 2007(N) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ K.P.MOHAMMED, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.KAMMU HAJI, KUNDUPARAMBIL HOUSE, MAANNOOR P.O., KALADI, KUTTIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.C.PRABIN BENNY RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. 2. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM. 4. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C., MALAPPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR FOR R1 TO R3 ADV. SHRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).29326/2007-N APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 08/11/2006 SUBMITED BY THE APPELLANT ALONG WITH THE ROUTE SKETCH. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G2/42300/06M DATED 24/01/2007 PASSED BY THE R.T.A. MALAPPURAM. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30/04/2007 PASSED BY THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (2ND RESPONDENT) IN MVAA.153/07 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE Rs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) 29326 of 2007 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: AUGUST 11, 2008 JUDGMENT The challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P2 and P3. 2. Petitioner made an application for a regular permit on the route Edappal-Ponnani-Puthanpalli- Kuttipuram via. Thattanpadi, Pothanur, Nariparamba, CV Junction, KK Junction, Kothamuck, Eramangalam, Thavanur, Ayinkalam and Kandanakam. The application was rejected on the basis that the sector Kuttipuram - Edappal is covered by Kozhikode-Guruvayur notified scheme. The matter was carried in appeal and confirming the findings in Ext.P2, the appeal was also rejected by Ext.P3. 3. Now the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he wants to make a modified application, seeking permit for the route excluding the objectionable overlapping area and seeks leave of this Court to make a WP(C) 29326/07 2 fresh application to the RTA for its consideration. 4. I heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the KSRTC and also the learned Government Pleader. 5. If, as stated by the petitioner, all that he wants is to make a fresh application to the 2nd respondent, excluding the sector overlapping the notified route, there is no reason why the petitioner shall not be permitted to do so. 6. Therefore I dispose of this writ petition directing that it will be open to the petitioner to make a modified application to the 2nd respondent, in which event, the 2nd respondent shall consider the same with notice to the affected parties, untrammeled by Exts.P2 order passed by the 2nd respondent and Ext.P3 judgment passed by the State Transport Appellate Authority. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE mt/-