IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2009 / 26TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 901 of 2009(G) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ MISHAL V.K., S/O. ABDUL MAJEED, VATTAKANDATHIL HOUSE, P.O. VALIYAPARAMBA, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, VATAKARA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, VATAKARA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SUDHADEVI FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.901 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 16th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T When Ext.P1 application made by the petitioner for regular permit came up for consideration before the 1st respondent, by Ext.P2, proceedings, the same was adjourned with a direction to the petitioner to submit a modified proposal without touching Palayam Bus stand, so as to avoid the traffic conjunction in Kozhikode City. It is aggrieved by this, the writ petition is filed. 2. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that question of modification arises only after the grant of permit, having regard to the reasons stated for deferring the application as is seen from Ext.P2, I do not think the 1st respondent was unjustified in calling upon the petitioner to produce the modified proposal. 3. In view of this, it is directed that on the petitioner producing the modified proposal as directed in Ext.P2 application, the same will be considered, if the application is still pending and orders passed by the RTA as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment, along with the modified proposal. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg