IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2010 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 32456 of 2010(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- ABDUL SALIM.T.T, AGED 36,S/O.MOIDU, NAFEEZA MANZIL,PANDHAKKAL , MAHE,KERALA 673310. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON SRI.M.JITHESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, ERNAKULAM. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 32456 OF 2010 (F) ===================== Dated this the 29th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Two stalls in the KSRTC bus stand, Ernakulam were let out to a person called Sri. Abdul Sathar who is stated to be the brother of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that he and his brother were running the business in the aforesaid premises in partnership. 2. Subsequently the allotee, namely Sri.Abdul Sathar, requested the KSRTC for cancellation of the licence and accordingly the licence was cancelled. It would appear that later Sri.Abdul Sathar made a request to the KSRTC for change of licence in favour of the petitioner. In this writ petition, petitioner challenges the cancellation of licence and seeks a direction to the KSRTC to transfer the licence in his favour. 3. Admittedly, licencee was Sri.Abdul Sathar and it was on the request of Sri.Abdul Sathar that KSRTC cancelled the licence. If the licencee has requested for cancellation of the licence and the KSRTC has acted upon that request, even if the licencee subsequently made an application withdrawing the WPC No. 32456/10 :2 : request, the KSRTC cannot be faulted for the action that it has taken. Therefore, the challenge raised by the petitioner against the decision of the KSRTC to cancel the licence cannot be sustained. 4. In so far as the request of the petitioner for transfer of the licence is concerned, first of all, this request made could not have been entertained by the KSRTC since licence itself is cancelled. That apart, submission made by the learned standing counsel appearing for the KSRTC would show that on cancellation of licence, KSRTC has already invited tenders. Therefore, at this distance of time, there arise no question of either KSRTC considering the request or this Court directing KSRTC to consider the request. Writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp