IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 33072 of 2010(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- NANDANAN,S/O.ACHUTHAN NAIR, PULLANIKKATTIL HOUSE,KOZHIKKATTIRI, PATTAMBI. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD-678 001. 2. THE SECRETARY,REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,PALAKKAD6-678001. BY GOVT.PLEADER SHRI K.C.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 33072 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner who is an existing stage carriage operator operating on the route Pattambi - Guruvayur with vehicle bearing registration No. KL 52 B 306 filed this writ petition mainly with a prayer to issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P5 and also seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent to consider the application for variation as requested by him in Ext.P2. Essentially, the grievance of the petitioner pertains to Ext.P5 proceedings dated 6.7.2010 issued on his application for variation. Evidently, as per the same, a report has been called for as to whether there is overlapping on the notified route Kozhikode - Guruvayoor from Melepattambi to Koottanad. The contention of the petitioner is that it can only be a mistake crept in the said proceedings as the petitioner has been operating on the route Pattambi - Guruvayur, the variation of the permit was sought as per Ext.P2 only for the purpose of extension from Koottanad - Peringode that is on a different direction. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as WPC.33072/2010 : 2 : also the learned Government Pleader. Considering the fact that the petitioner has been operating on the route Pattambi- Guruvayur on the strength of Ext.P1 it appears that no useful purpose will be served by directing the Secretary to conduct , an enquiry and submit a report as has been made as per Ext.P5, for the purpose of deciding the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P2 for extension from Koottanad to Peringode, which is in fact on a different route. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the meeting is scheduled to be held on 30.11.2010 and Ext.P2 request of the petitioner for variation would be taken up in the said meeting. This is recorded. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P2 application for extension from Koottanad to Peringode taking note of the above observation. If it is a mistake as alleged by the petitioner it shall not taken in to consideration for a decision on Ext.P5. At any rate, a decision thereon shall be taken on Ext.P5 in the next RTA meeting. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge