IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2008 / 28TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 24467 of 2008() ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.I.USMAN, KANNAMKULAM HOUSE, BMC P.O. THRIKKAKARA, KOCHI-21. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.KURUP SRI.C.R.SYAMKUMAR SRI.K.J.ABRAHAM SRI.LAVARAJ M.G. SRI.JOSE KURIAN SRI.C.R.VINOD KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE KSRTC, REPRESENTED BY ITS DTO, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. R1, 2 & 4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R.DEEPA BY ADV. SHRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) 24467 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: AUGUST 19, 2008 JUDGMENT The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P4 judgment of the STAT in MVAA 128/2008. 2. Petitioner submits that in respect of his stage carriage KL-7/H-5724, he was granted temporary permit in the route Aluva - Thevara, in the abandoned vacancy of another vehicle. Subsequently he applied for a regular permit and that was rejected by the RTA on the ground that the route applied for offends the Thiruvananthapuram - Kannur Scheme. 3. The order of rejection was challenged by the petitioner before the STAT by filing MVAA 609/2006 and was rejected by Ext.P5 for other reasons and finding that the route does not fall within the Thiruvananthapuram - Kannur Scheme. This order was challenged in a writ WP(C) 24467/08 2 petition before this Court as WP(C) 3128/2007. That was disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment directing reconsideration of the matter in the light of the draft notification of 9.5.2007. 4. Again, the RTA by Ext.P3 order rejected the application on the basis that the route in question offends the Thiruvananthapuram - Kannur Scheme. Ext.P3 order was challenged in MVAA 128/2008. The appeal was dismissed by Ext.P4 judgment entirely relying on the scheme notification of 6.5.2008. It is challenging this order this writ petition is filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner justifiably argues that clauses 4 and 19 of the notification dated 6.5.2008 was set aside by this Court in the judgment in WP(C) 15194/2008 and connected cases, and on that basis seeks reconsideration of the matter. I am inclined to agree. 6. In view of this Exts.P3 and P4 will stand set aside and the matter will stand remitted to the 1st respondent who shall reconsider the matter in accordance with law. It is clarified that all contentions raised by the petitioner and also by the standing counsel for the KSRTC are left open WP(C) 24467/08 3 and it will be entirely for the RTA to decide the matter afresh with notice to all concerned. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-