IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2008 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 35802 of 2008(K) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER : ---------------- T. VIKRAMA KURUP, VADANVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, KALLAMBALAM.P.O, KALLAMBALAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENTS : -------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. 4. PRINCE P. RAJ, S/O. PRABHUCHANDRA RAJ, BHASURA VILASOM, KATTUPUTHUSSERY, NAVIKULAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SUDHA DEVI FOR R1-3 SRI.P.DEEPAK FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 35802 of 2008(K) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAST PERMIT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 21.06.2008 EXT.P2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 28.07.2008 EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.10.2008 IN M.V.A.A. NO.535/2008 EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 03.10.2008 EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.11.2008 IN M.V.A.A. NO.591/2008 EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 26.07.2008 EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.10.2008 IN M.V.A.A. 538/2008 RESPONDENTS EXHIBIT : EXT.R4(a): TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT VALID TILL 18.12.2008 -TRUE COPY- P.A. TO JUDGE V.GIRI, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.35802 OF 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner applied for re-issuance of the temporary permit on the route Varkala Temple - Punalur, in the vacancy caused by the stage carriage KL-7/K 3650. Ext.P1 is the permit which was last issued in that behalf on 21.06.2008. Application for re-issuance of the temporary permit was rejected on the ground that it overlaps the scheme of nationalisation and the same is Ext.P2. Petitioner approached the State Transport Appellate Tribunal which remanded the matter for reconsideration in the light of the judgment of this court in Vijayan P.K. Vs. Government of Kerala and others [2008 (3) ILR 476]. The matter is to be considered pursuant to the remand under Ext.P3. 2. In the meanwhile, 4th respondent has applied for 20 days permit and the same was granted. It is to expire on 18.12.2008. According to the petitioner, since the earlier application for temporary permit filed by the petitioner was rejected on the ground of objectionable overlapping, W.P.(C) 35802 of 2008 2 Secretary, RTA, should not have issued a temporary permit to the 4th respondent on the same sector. Challenging Ext.P5 judgment of the STAT, on an appeal filed by the 4th respondent against the order of rejection by the RTA, it is contended by the petitioner that the STAT should have affirmed the rejection of the application for temporary permit filed by the 4th respondent on the ground that there is objectionable overlapping. Petitioner also challenges Ext.P6 proceedings issued by the RTA pursuant to the remand made under Ext.P5. 3. This court had passed an interim order staying the operation of Ext.P6. Ext.P6 shows that the operation of the temporary permit would have otherwise expired on 18.12.2008. In these circumstances, it is only appropriate that an application for temporary permit on the route in question, be considered by the RTA afresh. I take note of the contention by the petitioner that since the route in question is an inter district one, it is not open to the Secretary, RTA, to re-issue a temporary permit. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the Secretary, RTA, has the power under Rule 170 of the Motor Vehicles Rules. W.P.(C) 35802 of 2008 3 4. In my opinion, since route is an inter district one, it will only be appropriate that the applications for temporary permit both by the petitioner and 4th respondent are considered by the R.T.A. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider the applications, if any, filed by the petitioner and the 4th respondent for a temporary permit, in the vacancy caused by stage carriage KL-7/K 3650 on the route Varkala Temple - Punalur via Varkala, Kallambalam, Pallickal, Poredom, Ayoor and Anchal for the period subsequent to 18.12.2008. Orders must be passed after hearing both parties. RTA shall take a decision considering the claims of the petitioner and the 4th respondent, within 3 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. V.GIRI, JUDGE pac