IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 2ND ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 25276 of 2010(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. GARRY DAS, MANAGING PARTNER, LOLA MOTORS, MAYYANAD P.O., KOLLAM. 2. N.SWARAJ, VADAKKETHARAYIL, MAYYANAD P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR SMT.G.CHITRA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM, PIN-691 001. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.25276 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioners 1 and 2 are regular stage carriage permit holders operating stage carriage service on the route Mayyanad-Maruthady and Mayyanad-Chavara via Chinnakkada respectively with stage carriages bearing registration Nos.KL-02/Z 3330 and KL-02/AA 3330. The first petitioner is the managing partner and both the services are being operated by the same management. In the said circumstances, seeking variation of route on account of re-construction of a bridge on the route, they have jointly submitted Ext.P4 application before the respondent. Feeling aggrieved by the delay in the matter of disposal of Ext.P4 that this Writ Petition has been filed. 2. The learned Government Pleader submitted that since the petitioners have not submitted separate applications, Ext.P4 application is not sustainable under law. Be that as it may, it is a fact that Ext.P4 application, jointly submitted by the petitioners, is pending before the respondent. When such an application is submitted, the competent W.P.(C) NO.25276/2010 2 authority is bound to pass orders thereon, in accordance with law. He cannot disuse the power vested with him. Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 application submitted by the petitioners, expeditiously, in the next RTA meeting or within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, whichever is earlier. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observations with respect to the maintainability of Ext.P4 application jointly submitted by the petitioners.. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.25276/2010 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.25276/2010 4