IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2010 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15653 of 2010(F) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- P.V. JOJO, S/O.P.O. VAREED, AGED 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT PUTHUKADAN HOUSE, KASTURBA LANE, KOOKKENCHERRY, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, VATAKARA. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/05/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.15653 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner was the holder of a regular permit for the period from 12.7.1999 to 11.7.2004. The petitioner applied for renewal of the said permit, on 17.6.2004. Since the route was an inter regional route, concurrence had to be obtained from the sister authorities. According to the petitioner, though the required concurrence was obtained, the application for renewal was not granted. Since the matter was pending without any orders being passed thereon, the petitioner submitted a fresh application on 19.9.2009, which is Ext.P8. 2. The petitioner's applications were considered at the meeting of the respondents held on 28.12.2009. On the said date, it was found that the concurrence obtained from the sister authorities had remained unutilized while the period for which the renewal of permit was requested for had already expired. Therefore, the respondent held that the applications had become infructuous. Though the wpc No.15653/2010 2 concurrence obtained should have been utilised for the purpose of sanctioning the second application submitted by the petitioner, the respondent rejected both the applications of the petitioner as per Ext.P10. 3. The petitioner filed Ext.P10 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal ('STAT' for short) and as per Ext.P11, Ext.P10 order was set aside. The STAT has also directed grant of the renewal that was sought for by the petitioner. In spite of the above, the petitioner complains that as per Ext.P12, the respondent has sought for concurrence from the sister authorities. It is contended that the action of the respondent would result in serious prejudice and loss to the petitioner for the reason that the entire proceedings for obtaining concurrence would have to be started afresh. At any rate, it is submitted that unless the matter is expedited, the present application of the petitioner would also meet with the same fate as his earlier application which had become infructuous due to passage of time. 4. I feel that the petitioner is justified in his submissions and that appropriate directions would have to wpc No.15653/2010 3 be issued to expedite matters, without which in all likelihood, the present application of the petitioner would also be kept pending like his earlier application. 5. In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent to complete all formalities for obtaining concurrence from the sister authorities and to grant renewal of the permit of the petitioner in accordance with the directions of the STAT contained in Ext.P11 judgment as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/