IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2008 / 7TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 26086 of 2008(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------- P.V.JOY, PATHIKKAL HOUSE, 6/144, MAROTTICHAL, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR. 3. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KSRTC, THRISSUR. 4. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNLAL ERNAKULAM. 5. M.J.SHIBU, S/OJOHN, MANAMKUZHY HOUSE, P.O, KANNARA, THRISSUR. BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 26086 OF 2008 E = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29th day of August 2008 J U D G M E N T The 5th respondent applied for a regular permit and that was rejected by the RTA by Ext. P2. He filed Ext. P3 appeal before the Tribunal. In the appeal memorandum he relied on a certificate issued by the traffic police stating that the overlapping was on account of traffic regulations. The appeal was considered and by Ext. P4, the STAT remanded the matter for fresh consideration. 2. In so far as the contention that the overlapping was on account of traffic regulations, the Tribunal held that, that is a matter for the RTA to consider. Proceeding further STAT referred to the judgment in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal {ILR 1996 Karnataka 770} and of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 5061/08 and directed that the matter be reconsidered. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the STAT W.P.(C) No. 26086 OF 2008 -2- was guided only by the certificate issued by the traffic police and that the same was issued by the Sub Inspector of Police, Irinjalakkuda while the objection of overlapping was in relation to Thrissur town. 4. On going through Ext. P4 judgment of the STAT, I am not in a position to interfere with the order of the STAT. STAT took the view that the question whether the overlapping was on account of traffic regulations was a matter to be considered by the RTA. STAT also stated that the nature of the overlapping whether it is an inevitable intersection or not, is also a matter for the RTA to consider. 5. Since the certificate issued by the police has not weighed with the STAT, I do not think that the contention raised by the petitioner has any substance. In any case, since permit has been granted in pursuance to Ext. P4, I feel that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-