IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2010 / 6TH SRAVANA 1932 WA.No. 1279 of 2010 ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.15226/2010 Dated 03/06/2010 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------------- SHEEJA THOMAS, THAKADIYAL PARAMBIL, CHANNANIKKADU, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOTTAYAM--686 002. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY CUM REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KOTTAYAM-686 002. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No.1279 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of July 2010 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. Appellant is a stage carriage operator on the route Kottayam- Kumarakom via Thazhathangadi. 2. According to the appellant, Thazhathangadi is an accident prone area where several accidents have occurred in the recent past resulting in heavy loss of life. It is the contention of the appellant that situation may become worse, if the transport authorities issue more permits to new operators on the said route. The case of the appellant is that even variation of the existing permits on the said route may create havoc. 3. He highlighted all the above aspects in Ext.P1 request which he submitted before the Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam. Apparently, since no decision was taken on the said request, appellant filed a writ petition under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following sole prayer: “issue a writ of mandamus or any other writs, order or direction directing the respondent Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam to take steps to consider Ext.P1 request of the petitioner and not to grant further new stage carriage permits or variation of permits on the portion W.A.No.1279 OF 2010 :: 2 :: between Kumarakom and Kottayam via Thazhathangadi as the infrastructure of the road is unfit to carry more vehicles.” 4. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the situation as projected by the appellant does not call for issue of any direction as sought for by the appellant. The learned Judge took the view that it cannot be assumed that the authorities concerned would not bestow its attention to the issue highlighted by the appellant. It was further noticed by the learned Judge that the appellant had no case that any permit had been granted in violation of the existing law. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having considered the contentions raised by the appellant, we do not find any reason to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. We are in respectful agreement with the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment. The writ appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE jes