IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2010 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 11633 of 2010(D) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- V.A.ABDUL RAHIM, S/O.ABDULLAH, VELUTHEDATH HOUSE, HMT QUARTES AREA, KALAMASSERY. BY ADVS. MR.K.R.KURUP, MR.C.R.SYAMKUMAR, MR.K.J.ABRAHAM, MR.LAVARAJ M.G, MR.JOSE KURIAN, MR.C.R.VINOD KUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY ,ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.11633 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of April, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a stage carriage operator conducting services on the route Aluva-Thevara Ferry via Kalamassery, Edappally, Palarivattom, Kaloor and Boat Jetty with stage carriage vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-7/BF 6693. He had applied for a variation of his regular permit to operate the last three trips as Aluva-Santhinagar cultailing the portion from Santhinagar to Thevara Ferry for a distance of 3 Kms. and also for extension of the first and last trips to HMT Colony via Medical College, Kombara, Manakkappady and Carmel so that the starting and halting shall be from the HMT Colony where the petitioner is residing. The authority rejected the request of the petitioner. The petitioner then challenged the same before the State Transport Appellate Authority (STAT) in MVARP No.224/2009. The STAT allowed the revision and granted the variation that was sought for. Thereafter, the first respondent has granted the variation wpc No.11633/2010 2 that was sought for. Instead of issuing the permit that has been granted, the second respondent has issued Ext.P3 for settlement of timings of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, Ext.P3 is absolutely uncalled for, for the reason that the permit has not been granted subject to settlement of timings. The petitioner apprehends that the proceedings initiated would be kept pending indefinitely. The learned senior Government Pleader submits that the entire proceedings would be completed without delay. 2. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to complete the proceedings initiated as per Ext.P3 and to settle the timings of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/