IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2009 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 11090 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ BABU RAJAN, AMPALATHIVILA VEEDU, NEDUMPANA P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER, LEGISLATURE COMPLEX, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM. ADV. RI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC,ELE.COMMN. FOR R1 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 11120 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NOs. 11090 & 11120 OF 2009 ========================= Dated this the 6th day of April, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are aggrieved by Ext.P3, where the 2nd respondent has informed them that the issue of permit is deferred for want of sanction from the 1st respondent in view of the order dated 6/3/2009 and 21/3/2009 issued by the said respondent. 2. In these cases, by Ext.P1, the petitioners were granted permits and timings were also settled by Ext.P2 proceedings of the Secretary of the RTA. It is stated that current records were also produced. However, issue of permits was deferred on account of the direction of the Chief Electoral Officer to defer issue of permits till the election process is completed, except with the sanction of the said authority. In view of this, in Ext.P3 itself, it is stated that the 2nd respondent has already sought sanction of the 1st respondent and that orders are awaited. 3. The 1st respondent has filed a statement where they say they have not received any request so far from the 2nd respondent and that as and when the same is received, the request will be considered and orders will be passed. WPC 11090 & 11120/09 :2 : 4. Taking note of the above stand taken by the 1st respondent, I direct that it will be open to the petitioners to submit a copy of this judgment along with a copy of these writ petitions before the 1st respondent, in which case, Ext.P3 in these writ petitions will be treated as a proposal for sanction from the 2nd respondent and the 1st respondent shall consider the matter in the light of the contents of that communication and pass necessary orders without delay. Writ petitions are disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp