IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2011 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 14053 of 2011(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.K. HAMZA, KARUKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, RAJULA MANZIL.P.O, MATHILAKOM, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM - 682 030. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM - 682 030. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 14053 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of May, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a stage carriage operator operating a stage carriage on the route Ernakulam – Guruvayur. He applied for variation of the permit by curtailing the sector from Koonammavu to Kunnumpuram via Pathalam. By Ext.P1 order passed on 19.11.2010, Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam declined to grant the concurrence sought by the primary authority, viz, Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. By Ext.P2 order passed on 18.4.2011, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal allowed the revision, set aside Ext.P1 and directed the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam to grant concurrence. It was observed that it will be open to the primary authority to consider the question regarding curtailment. The grievance voiced by the petitioner is that though more than one month has passed after Ext.P2 order was passed, the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam has not granted concurrence, as a result of which the primary authority is disabled from considering his application for curtailment of the W.P.(C) No.14053 OF 2011 2 route. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to comply with Ext.P2 order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and to grant the concurrence sought by Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur. 2. I heard Sri I Dinesh Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Basant Balaji, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. Shorn of details, the grievance voiced by the petitioner is that notwithstanding the directions issued by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in Ext.P2 order, the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam has not yet granted concurrence, as a result of which, consideration of the petitioner's application for variation of the permit by the primary authority, viz, Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur is being delayed. 4. Ext.P2 order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal discloses that the State Transport Authority has set aside Ext.P1 and directed the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam to grant the concurrence sought by the Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur in the matter of the W.P.(C) No.14053 OF 2011 3 request made by the petitioner for variation of the route. In such circumstances, I dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to grant the concurrence sought by Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur on the petitioner's application for variation of the permit in terms of the direction issued by State Transport Appellate Tribunal in Ext.P2 order expeditiously, and in any event, within two weeks from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before the second respondent. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.