IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2008 / 24TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 29646 of 2008(D) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- K.C.THOMAS, KAKKATTIL HOUSE MAKKAPUZHA POST, RANNY. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PATHANAMTHITTA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PATHANAMTHITTA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. GIRI, J. ------------------------------- WPC.No. 29646/2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of October, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner was operating on the route Vadasserikkara - Thiruvalla on a vacancy caused by the defaulted service operated by another person. When an earlier application for temporary permit made by the petitioner was rejected by the second respondent, the matter was taken up in appeal before the STAT and this led to Ext.P1 judgment. The operative portion of the said judgment reads as follows:- “ In the result, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the second respondent is directed to grant temporary permit to the appellant for a maximum period of four months or till regular permit is granted in the vacancy caused due to the surrender of the regular permit, whichever is earlier”. 2. It seems that thereafter the petitioner again applied for a temporary permit for 20 days which was rejected on 19.8.2008 and the petitioner had filed MVAA 473/2008 before the Tribunal WPC.29646 /2008 2 and the same is pending . 3. The petitioner submitted Ext.P2 application for regular permit on 25.8.2008 and Ext.P3 application for temporary permit. Apparently no decision has been taken on Ext.P3 so far. 4. In so far as the direction to consider Ext.P2 is concerned, it is obviously for the RTA to consider the same provided the vacancy exists and the person who was originally operating has not sought for resumption of the service or renewal of service. Ext.P2 is to be dealt with in accordance with law by the RTA. I am not inclined to issue a direction for considering Ext.P3. But in circumstances where the question of issue of temporary permit is now pending consideration before the STAT in MVAA.423/2008, it is up to the petitioner to pursue the said appeal. The writ petition is disposed of as above. V. GIRI, JUDGE. Pmn/ WPC.29646 /2008 3