IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2009 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34546 of 2009(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- N. RAJAN, ELANKATHY KIZHAKKATHIL, MANAVILKULANGARA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM, REP. BY SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM. 3. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C., KOLLAM. 4. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 34546 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 2nd December, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a stage carriage operator. The petitioner filed an application for permit, which was rejected by Ext. P1 order on the ground of existence of a draft supplementation scheme. The petitioner filed Ext. P2 appeal before the Tribunal and by Ext. P3 judgment, the Tribunal upheld Ext. P1 order. The petitioner challenges Exts.P1 and P3 orders. 2. According to the petitioner, the draft scheme referred to in Ext. P3 is no longer in existence since the draft scheme has been finalised on 14-7-2008 and therefore the matter has to be considered afresh by the R.T.A. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader. 4. I find that Ext. P3 order was passed on 22-5-2008. The petitioner has filed this writ petition only on 1-12-2009. The operative portion of Ext. P3 order reads thus: “As pointed out by the learned standing counsel for the third respondent, the proposed route overlaps the supplementation scheme covered by the draft notification dated 9-5-2007, which is approved by the Government as per S.R.O.444/2008 dated 6-5- 2008. As per Section 104 of the M.V. Act, when a scheme is published, private operators can be granted permits only in accordance with the terms of the scheme. As per the said notification no portion of the supplementation scheme is allowed to be traversed. More over, the proposed route also overlaps Kollam – Kumbalam complete exclusion scheme. In any view of the matter it is obvious that the rejection of request for fresh regular permit is in accordance with the rules governing such matters. This appeal is therefore without merit.” 5. The petitioner has approached this Court after finalization of the draft scheme on 14-7-2008. On that ground, I cannot hold that Ext. P3 order is unsustainable, insofar as at the time of passing Ext. W.P.C. No. 34546/09 -: 2 :- P3 order, the same was perfectly in order. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.