IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 28TH MARCH 2008 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1930 WA.No. 680 of 2007 -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.703/2007 Dated 08/01/2007 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- M/S. JANAVEDI TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CHITTATTUKARA, VADAKKEKARA, NORTH PARUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, K.S.SOMARAJ. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON SRI.M.JITHESH MENON RESPONDENTS/1ST TO 4TH RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L. DATTU, C.J. & K.M. JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WRIT APPEAL No. 680 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT K.M. JOSEPH, J. The appellant is the writ petitioner. The appellant had filed an application on 27.6.2005 for regular permit to operate on the route Kodungalloor- Kaloor Bus Stand. The application was considered by the Regional Transport Authority and rejected the same on the ground that the proposed route objectionably overlaps from Parur to Kuriappilly and also Trichur-Triprayar scheme of nationalisation. The appellant filed appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, which was also dismissed. It is against the same, the writ petition was filed. 2. The learned Single Judge taking note of the fact that there is substantial overlapping rejected the writ petition. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is prepared to modify the route so as to make the route unobjectionable from the point of view of the nationalisation scheme. The learned Single Judge while rejecting the writ petition has made it clear that the dismissal of the writ petition would not stand in the way of the appellant making an appropriate application. Though the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that under Section 72 of the Motor Vehicles Act this court may direct the grant of a modified route, for which the appellant is agreeable, we are of the view that the relief, which is granted by the learned Single Judge by directing the appellant to W.A.680/2007. 2 make a fresh application, would satisfy the ends of justice. Accordingly, we reject this writ appeal. H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE sb.