IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2010 / 13TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23220 of 2010(B) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- R.MOHANKUMAR, 23/10, VINAYAKA HOUSE, KANATTUKARA, THRISSUR. BY ADVS. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR, SMT.G.CHITRA. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN-676 505. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM, PIN-676 505. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.M. MANOJ THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.23220 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th August, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a stage carriage operator conducting services on the route Thrissur-Guruvayur-Kozhikode on the strength of a regular permit. The permit is valid up to 17.12.2012. The route is a long distance one having a length of 144 Kms. Therefore, as per Rule 2(ea) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the service can be operated only as a Limited Stop Fast Passenger. The petitioner is fully qualified for being granted such a permit. For the purpose, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P2 application seeking conversion of his service. As per Ext.P3 judgment, though this Court had directed the respondent to consider the application for variation submitted by the petitioner, the same has been considered by Ext.P4 and has been adjourned indefinitely. Therefore, the petitioner seeks appropriate directions for the consideration and passing of final orders on the application expeditiously. 2. I have heard Mr.P.M.Manoj, the learned Government Pleader also in the matter. 3. Ext.P2 is the petitioner's application for wpc No.23220/2010 2 conversion of his service only for the purpose of making the same in conformity with the rules. The requirement of being a fleet owner is no longer there in the Rules, having been set aside by this court. While allowing the variation as sought for in the present case, certainly the interests of the travelling public also should be taken into consideration. However, that does not mean that consideration of the application has to be postponed indefinitely for the said purpose. Therefore, there are no grounds for deferring a decision on the application submitted by the petitioner. 4. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the application for variation submitted by the petitioner evidenced herein by Ext.P2 in accordance with law and to pass final orders thereon 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 css/