IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 8TH OCTOBER 2010 / 16TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 30052 of 2010(F) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- M.PRABHAKARAN, AGED 47, S/O.PRABHAKARAN NAIR, MANAKKANCHARATH HOUSE, KILLIMANGALAM, CHELAKKARA, TRICHUR, PIN-680 591. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON SRI.M.JITHESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, TRISSUR, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, CIVIL LINES, TRICHUR-680 003. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.A. ASIF THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/10/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.30052 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner had applied for grant of regular stage carriage permit to operate on the route Ottappalam-Thrissur via Lakkidi Koottupatha, Lakkidi Bridge, Pambady, Thiruwilwamala, Pazhayannur, Chelakkara, Vazhakode, Wadakkanchery, Athani, Viyyr and Patturaikkal as a limited stop ordinary service. However, the said request of the petitioner was rejected by the Regional Transport Authority as per Ext.P1. The petitioner had taken up the matter in appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam as M.V.R.A No.79/2003. As per Ext.P3, the appeal was allowed and Ext.P1 order was set aside and a further direction was given to grant regular permit to the petitioner subject to the counter signature of the sister authority. The contention of the petitioner is that subsequently, the application was considered and he was granted a regular stage carriage permit to operate service on the aforesaid route. On receipt of the same, he had produced the current records of the vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-8/K 2223, it is further submitted. The contention is W.P.(C) NO.30052/2010 2 that on account of the inaction to settle the timings in respect of the said vehicle, the petitioner is not able to operate on the route. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader. 3. True that as per Ext.P3, the S.T.A.T, Ernakulam set aside Ext.P1 and ordered to grant regular permit subject to the counter signature of the sister authority. However, no order has been produced before this Court to show that subsequent to Ext.P3, regular permit was granted actually to the petitioner. In this context, it is to be noted that Ext.P3 judgment of the S.T.AT, Ernakulam is dated 13.9.2004. In the circumstances, on account of the failure on the part of the petitioner to produce proof regarding the grant of regular permit, this court cannot straight away direct the respondent to settle the timings to enable the petitioner to operate on the aforesaid route. According to the petitioner, Ext.P4 would suggest that in the meeting held on 19.10.2005, the application for regular permit made by the petitioner and directed to be granted by the S.T.A.T as per Ext.P3, was taken up for consideration and it was granted on that day as item No.211. In the circumstances, the respondent is directed to settle the timings in respect of the permit and the vehicle, if the permit was already granted to the petitioner based on Ext.P3 W.P.(C) NO.30052/2010 3 judgment. This shall be done by the respondent expeditiously, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.30052/2010 4 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010