IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2009 / 30TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 37328 of 2008(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.JAYACHANDRAN, AGED 38 S/O. JANAKI AMMA, KAIPPULLY HOUSE KOZHUKULLI, P.O.AYYAPPANKAVU, TRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON SRI.M.JITHESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. 2. THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. 3. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS DISTRICT TRRANSPORT OFFICER, PALAKKAD. ADV. SHRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENIDX Ext.P1. True copy of the application in the prescribed form P.St.S.A with time schedule filed by the petitioner. Ext.P2. True copy of the order dated 20.11.2007. Ext.P3. True copy of the proceedings dated 17..9.2007. Ext.P4. True copy of the judgment in MVAA.NO.6/08. Ext.P5. True copy of the order dated 25.6.2008. Ext.P6. True copy of the representation filed by the petitioner dated 8.9.08. // true copy// P.A to Judge. ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No. 37328/ 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT Ext.P2 application made by the petitioner for regular permit, on the route stadium bus stand - stadium bus stand, was rejected by the first respondent on the ground of objectionable overlapping. That order was challenged in MVAA.No.6/08 before the STAT and the Tribunal by Ext.P4 judgment remanded the matter to the first respondent for reconsidering the application in the light of the observations made therein. Accordingly, the matter was considered by the first respondent on 25.6.2008 and as is seen from Ext.P5 proceedings, it was adjourned, with a direction to the Secretary to verify whether the alleged overlapping was an inevitable one. Complaint in this writ petition is that there has not been any progress in the matter. WP(c).No.37328/08 2 Taking into account the aforesaid grievance of the petitioner, it is directed that the first respondent shall reconsider the matter as directed in Ext.P4 judgment of the tribunal and pass final orders on the application made by the petitioner for a regular permit, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 8 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. Needless to say that the relevance of Ext.P3 will also be considered while orders are passed as above. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.37328/08 3