IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2010 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 11756 of 2010(T) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- P.T.SUBARI, PALAT THARAYIL HOUSE, EDAPPAL, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,PALAKKAD. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.11756 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of April, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a stage carriage operator. He has applied for the grant of a regular permit on the route Cherplassery-Pattambi. However, his application was rejected by the Regional Transport Authority (RTA) Palakkad. The petitioner challenged the said action before the State Transport Appellate Authority (STAT) in MVAA No.699/2008. The STAT has remanded the matter directing the authority to reconsider the application on the modified route. While so, as per the notification dated 14.7.2009, the Government has permitted overlapping on the notified route to the extent of 5 km. or 5% of the length of their own route, whichever is less. Since overlapping is permitted by the notification to the limited extent indicated above, the petitioner prays that his application for regular permit may be considered giving the benefit of the final notification to him. 2. The learned Senior Government Pleader has no wpc No.11756/2010 2 objection in Ext.P2 being directed to be considered by the first respondent. The petitioner also relies on Ext.P3 judgment wherein a similar direction has been issued by this Court. 3. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider the modified proposal of the petitioner evidenced herein by Ext.P2, in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/