IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2008 / 12TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 20500 of 2005(M) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P.C.JOHN, S/O.P.T.CHACKO, PUTHUSSERIL HOUSE, PENNUMARA, CHENGANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAVINDRAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PATHNAMTHITTA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, RTA., PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. THE D.T.O., KSRTC., PATHANAMTHAITTA. 4. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. M.P. SREEKRISHNAN, ADV. SRI.T.RAVIKUMAR, SC, ADV. SHRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/02/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.20500/2005-M: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE R.2. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE DECISION DTD. 02/07/2004. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DTD. 21/08/2004. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DTD. 09/05/2005. EXT.P.5: NIL. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE R.1. TO ISSUE REGULAR PERMIT TO SRI. AJITHKUMAR ON 23/08/07. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No. 20500 of 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner had regular permit on the route Chengannur- Pathanamthitta. It was valid till 6.3.2004. It is the case of the petitioner that he surrendered the permit in 2002. But the petitioner was issued with temporary permit on the same route. Petitioner applied for a regular permit in respect of the said route. That came to be rejected vide Ext.P2 on two grounds. Firstly, it was found that the route was well served. Further, it was found that the route offended the Trivandrum-Thiruvalla scheme. It was also found to overlap Alappuzha-Pathanamthitta route. Petitioner carried the matter in Ext.P3 appeal. It culminated in Ext.P4 order passed by the STAT. The STAT has proceed to uphold the complaint of the petitioner in regard to the first ground, but uphold Ext.P4 order on the second ground, namely, the application for regular permit being contrary to the schemes. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in Ext.P3 appeal memorandum filed before the Tribunal it was contended that the granting of the regular permit to the petitioner will not offend the schemes in question factually and his contention is that this complaint of the petitioner did not receive the attention of the Tribunal and the Tribunal only WPC. 20500/2005. 2 proceeded to take a decision bearing in mind the decision of this court in Rahul Tom v. K.S.R.T.C. (2001(3) K.L.T. 261). 3. It is not in dispute that pending the writ petition, there is a notification issued superseding all the earlier Schemes. In such circumstances, I do not deem it necessary to go into the questions raised by the petitioner. I only make it clear that it is open to the petitioner, if so advised, to file a fresh application seeking a regular permit, in which case a decision will be taken thereon in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb