IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2009 / 30TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 26229 of 2008(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MOHANAN NAIR, RADHA BHAVAN, KURICHIMUTTOM P.O., ARANMULA, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C, ALAPPUZHA. 4. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.DILIP MOHAN ADV. SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C. FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 26229/08. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT. P2. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.20.9.07. P3. COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DTD.9.10.07. P4. COPY OF THE OBJECTION BY KSRTC. P5. COPY OF THE REPLY AFFIDAVIT DTD.30.1.08. P6. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN MVAA NO.707/07 DTD.11.2.2008. P7 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).No. 5061/08. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.26229 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 21st day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was given a temporary permit in the route Sasthamcotta-Chengannur. He applied for a regular permit in that route. The same was rejected on the ground that the route overlaps a notified route for 1.1 km. from Kollakadavu to Kochalumoodu. The petitioner filed an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, which was dismissed, by Ext.P6 order. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P6 order in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner submits that at the time when the Tribunal had considered the matter, only a draft scheme was in force and it was based on that draft scheme, that the STAT rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the scheme has been finalised with modifications. In view of those modifications, according to the petitioner, the petitioner's application for permit would lie. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to have his application considered in the light of the finalised scheme. 3. Having heard the Government Pleader also, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to reconsider the application of the petitioner in the light of the finalised scheme, as 2 expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge