IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2009 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 8383 of 2009(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.SREEKUMAR,S/O.VISHWANATHA PILLAI, AGED 38 YEARS,RESIDING AT THUNDIL VEEDU,MURUNTHAL, PERINAD.PO, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER,LEGISLATURE COMPLEX, VIKAS BHAVAN.PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY,REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM. 3. PRIVATE BUS OPERATOR'S FEDERATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY,LAWRENCE BABU, CAMP OFFICE, BEACH ROAD, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC,ELE.COMMN. FOR R1 MR.P.N.SANTHOSH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2009, ALONG WITH WP(C) NOS.9216, 9335 & 9348/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) Nos.8383, 9216, 9335 & 9348 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 24th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T Since the issue raised in these writ petitions are common, I refer to the pleadings in WP(C) No.8383/2009, to the extent it is relevant. 2. The main grievance of the petitioners is regarding Ext.P5, a communication issued by the Chief Electoral Officer, which reads as under:- “Please refer to the petition cited (copy enclosed) and to inform you that RTA Board Meetings and the process of issue of permits as alleged in therein may be deferred till the process of election is over.” The petitioners contend that after several rounds of litigations when the permit was granted by Ext.P4 proceedings of the RTA, the issue of the permit is prevented as a consequence of Ext.P5. 3. Taking into account the fact that in these cases, the grant or issue of permit is consequent on the judgments rendered by the STAT and this Court, it is now pointed out in the statement filed by the 1 st respondent, that they have issued Annexure A, a clarificatory WP(C) Nos.8383, 9216, 9335 & 9348/2009 -2- order, which reads as under:- “Please refer this office letter of even number dated 06/03/2009 regarding Regional Transport Authority meetings and issue of permits. In partial modification of the directions contained therein, it is clarified that Regional Transport Authority Board meetings can be conducted, but for issuance of new permits, prior permission must be obtained from Chief Electoral Officer clearly stating the need for such permits, case by case. If the authorities entertain any doubt suo motto or otherwise as to whether any application for issuance and renewal of permits may be the effect of breach of the provisions of Model Code of conduct, the same may also be referred to this office. If any Court directions exist in respect of such application the same may also specifically mentioned.” From the last sentence of the clarificatory order referred to above, it is clear that if the grant or issue of any permit is consequent on any Court directions, the prohibition as imposed in Ext.P5 referred to above, will not apply to such grant or issue as the case may be. This position is also confirmed by the counsel for the 1 st respondent. 4. In these four cases, the grant or issue of permit is based WP(C) Nos.8383, 9216, 9335 & 9348/2009 -3- on the orders of the Tribunal or this Court and therefore, these are cases, which are not covered by Ext.P5 as it stands excluded by virtue of the last sentence in the clarificatory order. 5. Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of clarifying that Ext.P5 communication referred to above, will not stand in the way of the authority concerned in granting or issuing permit, as the case may be. 6. Needless to say that the process consequent like will be completed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. These writ petitions are disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg