IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2010 / 29TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 25922 of 2010(M) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.V.ANIL KUMAR, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.VISWANATHAN, INDIRANAGAR, DHONI P.O., PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. 2. THE SECRETRAY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD 3. K.K.VIJAYAN,CHENNANKAD HOUSE, POST PAUUTHIPULLY,PALAKKAD. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 25922 OF 2010 M ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th August, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is a stage carriage operator conducting services on the route Tholannur – Kuzhalmannam. The third respondent had applied for the grant of a regular permit to conduct services on the route Tholannur – Chittur. The application was submitted without furnishing the particulars of any vehicle. The third respondent's application was considered and was granted permit on 6/7/2010 in respect of stage carriage vehicle bearing registration No: KL-10/H 567. The permit has been granted as per Ext.P1, subject to settlement of timings. 2. According to the petitioner, the vehicle bearing registration No: KL-10/H 567 is already covered by a regular permit on another route Pazhambalacode – Palakkad issued to the third respondent himself. No permit can be issued to a vehicle that is already covered by a regular permit. Therefore, it is submitted that the third respondent has played fraud on the authorities. 3. The learned senior Govt. Pleader Mr. K.C.Santhosh Kumar on instructions submits that the vehicle KL-10/H 567 is a vehicle that is covered by another regular permit and, therefore offering WPC 25922/2010 2 the same for the grant of Ext.P1 permit in the present case is a serious act of misrepresentation that would entail penal consequences including revocation of the permit already granted. It is submitted that the first respondent would initiate appropriate action against the third respondent in accordance with law. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that he has already submitted Ext.P3 representation to the first respondent in his capacity as the Secretary of the Bus Owners Association, which is pending consideration of the said authority. 4. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to initiate appropriate action against the third respondent for the misrepresentation made, after considering Ext.P3 representation also, in accordance with law. Such action as indicated above shall be initiated and completed 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 jj WPC 25922/2010 3