IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2008 / 10TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 14971 of 2007(G) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- PRINCE N.B., KALLINGAL HOUSE, POOTHOTTA. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.V. MANOJ KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/09/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.14971/2007-G: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT ISSUED TO STAGE CARRIAGE KRK.4795 VALID UP TO 06/10/2006. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE FOUR MONTHS TEMPORARY PERMIT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER VALID FROM 10/07/2002 TO 09/11/2002. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE EXISTING TEMPORARY PERMIT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER VALID FROM 07/03/2007 TO 06/07/2007. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE R.1. DTD. 20/12/2002 REJECTING THE PETITIONER'S REGULAR PERMIT APPLICATION. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE S.T.A.T. IN MVAA.NO. 339/2003 DTD. 01/10/2004. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE R.2. TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 18/09/2006. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE R.1. DTD. 07/02/2007. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 04/07/2007 WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE R.2. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE 4 MONTHS TEMPORARY PERMIT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER VALID TILL 12/07/2008. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.14971/2007 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that, in the defaulted vacancy of stage carriage KRK-4795, on the strength of Ext.P2, petitioner has been operating the vehicle since 10.7.2002. It is stated that some time in 2000, the original permit holder surrendered the permit. According to the learned Government Pleader, the same was canceled on 3.7.2002. There upon the petitioner submitted an application for a regular permit in the aforesaid route on the ground that there is a vacancy. That was rejected by the RTA as per Ext.P4 taking the view that there was no vacancy. 2. Against that order petitioner filed an appeal before the Tribunal as MVAA.No.339/2003. The appeal was disposed of by Ext.P5 judgment allowing and the appeal WP(c).No.14871/2007 2 setting aside Ext.P4. The matter was remitted to RTA for consideration along with other applications that may be submitted on inviting application. According to the petitioner, thereafter though by Ext.P6 he has been informed that he will have to wait until applications are invited, by Ext.P7, the RTA has rejected his application on the ground that in terms of Rule 2(C)(a) of the KMV Rules, the route in question is not a city service. 3. Though the counsel for the petitioner have contentions on the merit of this finding in Ext.P7, learned counsel now makes a request that he may be permitted to amend his application to make it in consonance with Rule 2 (c)(a) and on that basis the RTA may be directed to consider the same in the light of the notification issued under Section 71(3) of the Act limiting the city permits. 4. Having considered the submission I see no reason to decline the limited relief that is sought for. If the petitioner is so eligible, let his case also be considered in the light of the amendment, which he wants to make. WP(c).No.14871/2007 3 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P7. The petitioner will be permitted to amend his application as requested by him and thereafter the RTA shall consider the application as amended. It is clarified that I have not dealt with the merits of the claim and it is entirely for the RTA to consider the request in accordance with law. 6. It is directed that the petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with an application for modification of his regular permit application, within 3 weeks from today and thereafter the RTA shall consider the matter as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 8 weeks thereafter. It is directed that in the meanwhile status quo as on date shall be maintained. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.14871/2007 4