IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 24TH MAGHA 1929 W.P.(C).No. 5194 of 2008 (R) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------- MOHAMMED, S/O.ALASSANKUTTY KOZHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O. MONGAM MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER K.S.R.T.C., MALAPPURAM. 4. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 5194 OF 2008 M = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 13th February, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner had made an application for a regular permit on the route Thripanachi-Vellur touching Areacode. That application of the petitioner was considered and by Ext. P2, the R.T.A. rejected the same saying that the offered vehicle does not belong to the applicant. Petitioner carried the matter in appeal which was allowed by Ext. P3 and it was ordered to grant permit subject to settlement of timing. When the matter went back to the R,.T.A., it reconsidered the application and rejected the same saying that a portion of the route from Athani to Mongam overlaps the notified route included in the notification dated 9.5.2007. Ext. P5 appeal was filed against Ext. P4. In the appeal, the K.S.R.T.C., filed Ext. P6 objection confirming that the aforesaid portion of the route applied for was covered by the notification dated 9.5.2007. Petitioner submits that when the matter was taken up for hearing before the Tribunal, he requested that the objectionable part may be excluded W.P.(C) No. 5194 OF 2008 -2- and that the permit may be directed to be granted in implementation of Ext. P3 for the remaining portion of the route. However, according to him, without taking this aspect into account the Tribunal rejected the application by Ext. P7, on the ground that the route applied for includes notified sector also. Reiterating the aforesaid request, petitioner sought review of Ext. P7 by filing Ext. P8 and that also is rejected by Ext. P9. It is in the aforesaid circumstances this writ petition has been filed. 2. Ext. P1 is a sketch of the route applied for and from the sketch I notice that the objectionable portion of the route is Athani to Mongam which obviously will call for exclusion of the sector Mongam to Vellur. Since the petitioner reiterates in the review petition as also in the writ petition that he had requested the Tribunal to direct consideration of his application excluding the aforesaid sector, I feel it is only proper that the RTA reconsiders the petitioner's application and implement Ext. P3 order of the STAT, taking into account the statement made as above. 3. Accordingly, quashing Exts. P4, P7 and P9 I direct that the 1st respondent shall consider the petitioner's application mentioned in Exts. P2 and P3, excluding the sector Mongam to Vellur. A W.P.(C) No. 5194 OF 2008 -3- decision on the application shall be taken as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/- S