IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2009 / 24TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 18896 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.P. GIRISH NAMBOODIRI, S/O. PARAMESWARAN NAMBOODIRI, CHERIKKAD MANA, P.O., THORRIPPAL, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR. 3. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KSRTC, THRISSUR. 4. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI. K. PRABHAKARAN, SC, KSRTC SRI. P. NARAYANAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.18896 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 15th July,2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner applied for the grant of regular stage carriage permit on the route Ambalur-Irinjalakuda. Application was rejected by the RTA ,inter alia, finding that the distance of the route, extends to 27 kms and the distance of 1 km from Pudukkad to Amballur overlaps the notified route of Ernakulam-Palakkad Scheme and that it also overlaps another section of the notified route from Cheriyapalam to Valiyapalam traversing a distance of 0.5 kms forming part of the Thrissur-Thrissur Circular Scheme. Petitioner preferred an appeal before the STAT and the STAT remanded the matter to the RTA to consider the petitioner’s request on the premise that the petitioner had agreed to avoid the objectionable overlapping portions. The operative portion of the order of the STAT reads as follows: W.P ( C) No.18896 of 2009 2 “In the result, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the first respondent to re-consider the request of the appellant, if actually he files a modified proposal within one month from today, avoiding all the objectionable overlappings of the notified routes.” 2. The matter was again considered by the RTA which by Ext.P3 again rejected the petitioners request. On further appeal before the STAT the order passed by the RTA was confirmed on the ground that in the earlier judgment the STAT had directed that the petitioner’s proposal to be considered if he avoids all the objectionable overlappings of the notified routes. He has not done so. Therefore, the decision taken by the RTA is correct. The same is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the RTA taking note of the fact that STAT had even in the earlier judgment remanded the matter to the RTA as per Exhibit-P1 noting that the petitioner’s proposal may be considered if he avoids all objectionable overlappings of the notified routes. STAT was bound by W.P ( C) No.18896 of 2009 3 its earlier order and that is what has been reiterated in Ext.P5. The writ petition is therefore dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to submit a modified proposal as already permitted in Exhibit-P1 and reiterated in Exhibit-P5. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.18896 of 2009 4 W.P ( C) No.18896 of 2009 5