IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 27TH SEPTEMBER 2007 / 5TH ASWINA 1929 WP(C).No. 14776 of 2007(H) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- RENI PETER, PULINILKUMKALAYIL, KOTHANALLOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KASARGODE. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KASARGODE. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BENJAMIN PAUL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/09/2007,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.14776/2007: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 & P1.A: COPIES OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE R.T.A. KOZHIKODE & VATAKARA DTD. 15/07/2006. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER OF THE STAT DTD. 31/10/2007 IN MVARP. NO. 404 & 406/2006. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 30/03/2007 IN W.P.(C). NO. 112/2007 & CONNECTED CASES. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE R.1. DTD. 22/03/2007. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT VALID TILL 3/09/2007 ISSUED TO KL- 05/7100. EXT.P.5.A: COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT VALID TILL 30/09/2007 ISSUED TO KL- 05/S 1010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 14776 of 2007 -------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of September, 2007 J U D G M E N T Concurrence was rejected by the RTA by Exhibits P1 and P1 (a) orders. This was challenged before the STAT and was confirmed by Exhibit-P2. Order of the Tribunal was challenged in this Court in W. P (C) No.112/2007 which was disposed of by Exhibit -P3 judgment directing the RTAs to consider the application for renewal of permit as Fast Passenger or any other eligible service other than LSOS. It was also directed that RTAs are directed to pass orders on concurrence. However, before the judgment was rendered final orders were passed by Exhibit -P4 rejecting regular permit. In the light of Exhibit-P3 judgment, petitioner now seeks to have Exhibit -P4 quashed and the matter to be reconsidered. 3. In view of Exhibit-P3 judgment of this Court, the rejection of concurrence by R.T.A has been set aside and therefore the matter requires to be reconsidered. 3. Accordingly, quashing Exhibit -P4, I dispose of this writ petition directing the 1st respondent to consider the application for renewal of permit of the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) ma K.THANKAPPAN,J CRL.A. NO.92 OF 1999 ORDER 25th May, 2007