IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2009 / 6TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 24977 of 2009(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THOMAS MANI, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.MANI, RESIDING AT MALLAKKATTU HOUSE, POTHENPURAM P.O., PAMPADY, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Shg/ V.GIRI, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = W.P.(C). No. 24977 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = Dated this the 28th day of August 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner operates a Stage Carriage with a regular permit on the route Pampady-Kottayam. He filed Ext.P1 application before the respondent for a variation of the conditions of permit, which included a change of a terminus, deviation through a virgin sector and curtailment of an existing sector. The application was considered in the meeting of the respondent on 30.07.2009. But it has been adjourned indefinitely requiring the petitioner to submit a modified application without curtailment. This is evidenced by Ext.P3. Petitioner challenges Ext.P3 on the ground that the application has not been disposed of. It is further contended that the Counsel for the petitioner had not agreed for any curtailment. In the circumstances, no purpose would be served in requiring the petitioner to move the R.T.A. again for variation of Ext.P3. The respondent should either allow the application or dismiss it or allow it in part. An indefinite adjournment of the application, as has been done as per Ext.P3, is not called for, it is contended. 2. I heard the learned Senior Government Pleader also. W.P.(C). No. 24977 OF 2009 2 3. I find force in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the respondent should take a decision on the application. Ext.P3 does not amount to a decision. 4. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to pass final orders on Ext.P1 application within 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This shall be done on the premise that the petitioner is not willing to submit a modified application for variation without curtailment. (V.GIRI) JUDGE kkms/