IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 33408 of 2010(A) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.M.SUBINA, "DRISHYA", KEEZHARA, P.O.MAVILAYI, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KANNUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN -670 001. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KANNUR, PIN – 670 001. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.33408 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated 10th November, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner submitted Ext.P1 application for regular permit on the route Ambayathodu - Kottiyoor - Odakkadavu - Kannur H.Q. Hospital. On consideration of the said application, instead of passing an order thereon, the first respondent as per Ext.P2 proceedings observed that the intention of the petitioner is to operate more trips through well served portion Odakkadavu - Kannur H.Q. Hospital and only one trip is intended to be operated through the ill served area and accordingly, he was directed to offer more trips through ill served portion. For that purpose the matter was adjourned. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said proceedings in Ext.P2. According to the petitioner, when an application for grant of permit is submitted , the first respondent is bound to pass orders thereon and the first respondent cannot issue a direction as has been done in Ext.P2. It is submitted that the petitioner is not prepared to comply with the directions in Ext.P2 to operate more trips through the ill served portion. Be that as it may, the question is with respect to the liability on the part of the first respondent to pass an order on an application like Ext.P1. Ext.P2 cannot be construed as an order of WP(C).No.33408/2010 2 rejection or grant of permit and therefore, an appeal will not lie against Ext.P2. Therefore, the first respondent is directed to consider Ext.P1 application in accordance with law and pass orders thereon expeditiously, at any rate in the next RTA meeting or within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, whichever is earlier. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS