IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2011 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 5273 of 2011(H) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- SIMILY SIBU, W/O.SIBU, KANIYAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, MUTTAPPILLY P.O., MUKKOTTUTHARA, KANJIRAPPALLY. BY ADVS. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN SMT.R.PADMAKUMARI RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY- 680 030 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM - 680 030 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.M.MANOJ THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 5273/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT APPLICATION DATED 27/01/2011 P2: COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 27/01/2011. P3: COPY OF THE ORDER IN MVARP NO.21/2010 DATED 31/01/2011. P4: COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 19/11/2010. P5: COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 19/11/2010 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.5273 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner applied for a fresh temporary permit of 20 days duration to operate a stage carriage on the route Kaloor- Koothattukulam by submitting Ext.P1 application. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam considered the said application and passed Ext.P2 order dated 27.1.2011 rejecting the application. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. By Ext.P3 order passed on 31.1.2011, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal allowed the revision petition on the ground that it should have been considered by the Regional Transport Authority. The Tribunal accordingly directed consideration of the said application for temporary permit by the Regional Transport Authority. The grievance voiced by the petitioner is that though nearly two months have passed after the said direction was issued, till date, the Regional Transport Authority has not considered the application and passed orders thereon. Relying on Exts.P4 and P5 orders, it is contended that on the same route/sectors thereof, temporary permits of four months duration have been granted by the very same Regional Transport Authority, and therefore, there is W.P.(C) No.5273 of 2011 2 no reason why the petitioner's application should not be expeditiously considered. 2. The respondents have been served and they have entered appearance. When the writ petition came up for hearing today, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the Regional Transport Authority will consider Ext.P1 application for temporary permit submitted by the petitioner and take an appropriate decision thereon expeditiously. In the light of the said submission and having regard to the fact that by Exts.P4 and P5 orders, temporary permits of four months duration have been issued under the proviso to section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, I dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P1 application and pass appropriate orders thereon expeditiously and in any event within two months from today. Needless to say, in the event of the petitioner's application for temporary permit being granted, the timing conference shall be held, the timings settled and the temporary permit issued expeditiously and in any event within one month from the date of the grant. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.