IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2008 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 11976 of 2008(A) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M.K.RAVINDRAN, AGED 60, S/O.KARUPPAN, MUDAVANGATTIL HOUSE, P.O.CHAZHOOR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680 571. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON, ADV. SRI.M.JITHESH MENON. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.V. MANOJ KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/06/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.11976/2008-A: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 05/02/2007 FOR THE PERIOD 05/02/07 TO 04/02/2012. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER GRANTING COUNTERSIGNATURE BY THE R.1. DTD. 21/08/07. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE LETTER FILED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 15/11/07 REQUESTING MAXIMUM TIME. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C). NO. 3611/08 DTD. 31/01/08. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE R.1. DTD. 26/02/08. EXT.P.6: EXTRACT OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE FROM PAGES 2,3,12 AND 38 IN RESPECT OF KL-8/AE.413. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) 11976 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: JUNE 16, 2008 JUDGMENT Ext.P5 proceedings of the 1st respondent is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. Petitioner submits that he was granted Ext.P1 regular permit on the route Chazhoor - Ernakulam. Since the route covered a portion coming under the RTA, Ernakulam, counter signature was sought for and by Ext.P2, the 1st respondent directed the petitioner to produce the current records within thirty days for endorsing the counter signature. It is stated that the petitioner sought extension of time by filing Ext.P3. When there was delay in the matter, petitioner approached this court and filed a writ petition as WP(C) 3611/208. That petition was disposed by Ext.P4 judgment directing finalisation of the matter within a time frame. It was stated that without notice, the matter was considered and the RTA issued Ext.P5 proceedings recording the absence of the petitioner and rejecting his application for the maximum time sought for by him in Ext.P3. Challenging Ext.P3, this writ petition is preferred. WP(C) 11976 of 2008 2 3. The learned Government Pleader submits that it was with notice to the petitioner the matter was considered and that Ext.P5 was issued on account of his absence. No records proving service of notice on the petitioner has been produced before me to satisfy that the petitioner was given notice before Ext.P5 was passed. 4. In view of this, I feel that the matter needs to be reconsidered and accordingly I quash Ext.P5 and direct that the 1st respondent shall reconsider the matter with notice to the petitioner and in accordance with law. It is directed that the matter shall be considered as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate, within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE mt/-