IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2010 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 7924 of 2010(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MATHEW K.JOSEPH, AMBALAKADAVIL, KURICHI, S.PURAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM. BY SENIOR GP K C SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.7924 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF MARCH, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Stage Carriage operator conducting services on the route Chenganacherry-Kottayam via Manipuzha, Mulamkuzha, Chottikunnu, Pakkil, Ponnimattom, Kurichy, Anchalkutty, Punnamood, Thuruthy, Muthumoola. The petitioner had filed an application for the issue of a regular permit on 9.2.2007. The application was considered and was rejected finding that there was objectionable overlapping in the notified route. Against the said order, the petitioner filed MVAA No.72 of 2009 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT). The STAT set aside the order and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration. However, the application was again rejected finding that there was objectionable overlapping on the notified route. Thereupon, the petitioner filed a modified application avoiding the portion that was objected to. However, the matter was again adjourned by the RTA for the reason that the application was objected to by the KSRTC on the ground that there was still overlapping by 10 kms on the notified route. Wpc 7924/2010 2 The petitioner thereupon submitted a fresh modified application avoiding the overlapping that was pointed out. He complains that no orders was passed on the said modified application, till date. The learned Senior Government Pleader submits that the application would be considered and appropriate orders passed, without delay. 2. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the modified application of the petitioner for the issue of a regular permit, evidenced herein by Ext.P5 and to pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment or in the next meeting of the RTA, whichever is earlier. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk