IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2008 / 3RD MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 2234 of 2008(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ ALATHUR TALUK BUS OPERATORS ORGANISATION, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, M.AZEEZ. BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, R.T.A., PALAKKAD. 3. THE MOTOR VEHICLES INSPECTOR, ALATHUR SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. P.T.SURESHKUMAR, S/O. THEETHU, PANTHALAMKODE, PULLODE P.O., ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------- W.P(C) No. 2234 OF 2008 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT The complaint of the petitioner is regarding the report that has been submitted by the 3rd respondent in relation to an application made by the 4th respondent for a regular permit. According to the petitioner, the report of the 3rd respondent contains incorrect facts and it does not even refer to the overlapping on the notified route. In this context, the petitioner seeks a direction to the 1st respondent to take into account Ext.P2 representation made by him when the application submitted by the 4th respondent for regular permit is taken up for consideration. Since a decision on the application made by the 4th respondent will be influenced by the report of the 3rd respondent, about which the petitioner has been complaining, I do not find any reason to decline the prayer. If, as a matter of fact, the report submitted by the 3rd respondent contains incorrect facts, that only lead to miscarriage. Therefore, I direct that the 1st respondent shall take into account Ext.P2 representation made by the petitioner at the time WPC No. 2234 of 2008 2 when the application made by the 4th respondent for a regular permit to operate in the route, Alathoor-Adiperanda Thara via. Trippalloor Chittilanchery, Nemmara, Adiperanda is considered. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE btt WPC No. 2234 of 2008 3