IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2008 / 2ND SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 21916 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- B.ANIL KUMAR, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S.A.V.BHARGAVAN & SONS, ATTINGAL. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI SRI.HANSON.P.MATHEW RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (RURAL) AT ATTINGAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, ATTINGAL. BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 21916 OF 2008 H ==================== Dated this the 24th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that in respect of Stage Carriage KL 01 D 8577, he has filed Ext.P8 application before the 2nd respondent for its transfer and seeks a direction for its consideration. It is seen that in respect of this very same vehicle, one Smt. Meena Kumari had filed an application for transfer of ownership and that request was directed to be considered by this court in Ext.P5 judgment. It is stated that pursuant to Ext.P5, the request made was considered and was rejected by the 2nd respondent by its order dated 17/11/2007. Petitioner submits that the order of rejection was appealed to the Deputy Transport Commissioner and by Ext.P7, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration by the 2nd respondent. In the meanwhile, petitioner has also submitted Ext.P8 application for transfer of ownership of the same vehicle in his favour and prays that Ext.P8 also may be considered as and when the 2nd respondent considers the request of Smt.Meena Kumari in pursuance to Ext.P7 appellate order. 2. Since the claim raised by both parties are in relation to the WPC 21916/08 :2 : very same vehicle, it is only appropriate that both these applications filed by the rival claimants are considered together so that both parties can make their representations in the matter. 3. Learned Government Pleader on instructions submit that Ext.P7 appellate order was received by the 2nd respondent and that a decision is yet to be taken in this matter. 4. In view of the above, it is directed as and when the claim of Smt.Meena Kumari is reconsidered in pursuance to Ext.P7, along with the same, Ext.P8 application submitted by the petitioner will also be taken up for consideration with notice to both the petitioner as also the appellant in Ext.P7 order, Smt.Meena Kumari. 5. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp