IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2008 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1930 WA.No. 1159 of 2008() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN RP.308/2008 IN W.P.(C).NO.18010/2006 Dated 10/04/2008 .................... APPELLANT/ PETITIONER/PETITIONER -------------------------------------------------------- A.R.PRABHAKARAN NAIR, SINDHU VILLA, NARIYAPURAM, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAVEENDRAN SRI.M.S.ANIL KUMAR RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ALAPPUZHA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, TRIVANDRUM. ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT NO.4: 4. KERALA STATE ROAD TRASNPORT CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT NO.5: 5. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, KSRTC. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. Koshy & P.N.Ravindran, JJ. -------------------------------------- W.A. No. 1159 of 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of June, 2008 Judgment Koshy,J. Petitioner's application for permit was turned down. Finally, by Ext.P4 order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal on the ground that the route in question was a notified route. Clause 4 of the notification only prohibits issuance of fresh permit retaining the then existing regular and temporary permits. That means that those operators can further operate and petitioner's regular application was pending. It is an admitted case that when the notification came, petitioner was running the bus on a temporary permit. It is also a known case that even in the nationalised routes KSRTC is not able to run the service regularly because of shortage of stage carriages and protection of existing temporary and nationalised permits in Ext.P4 shows that existing buses can run and no fresh permits can be granted and that does not mean that the earlier permit holders cannot run the service or that it cannot be renewed. Such permits can be renewed on the facts of the case. Depending upon the need temporary permits can W.A.No.1159/2008 2 be converted into regular permits also. It is submitted that application for regular permit is pending. Since they were running stage carriages in the routes concerned, we are of the opinion that the notification is not a bar and, therefore, Ext.P4 is set aside and R.T.A. is directed to consider the application of the petitioner for temporary and regular permit as expeditiously as possible. The writ appeal is disposed of accordingly. J.B.Koshy Judge P.N.Ravindran Judge vaa W.A.No.1159/2008 3 J.B. KOSHY AND P.N.RAVINDRAN,JJ. ------------------------------------- W.A. No. 1159 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Judgment Dated:5th June, 2008