IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 14TH SEPTEMBER 2007 / 23RD BHADRA 1929 WP(C).No. 14561 of 2007(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.N. RAMACHANDRAN, KAMMANGATTU HOUSE, PERAMANGALAM, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.R. SABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/09/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO 14561/07 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER EXT.P2. COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH OF THE ROUTE THRISSUR-GURUVAYUR- KOZHIKODE EXT.P3. COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE RTA MALAPPURAM DT. 29.5.06 EXT.P4. COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE RTA MALAPPURAM DT. 23.9.06 EXT.P5. COPY OF THE LIST OF SERVICES ON THE ROUTE THRISSUR-KOZHIKODE EXT.P6. COPY OF THE REVISION MEMORANDUM IN MVARP NO.550/2006 DT. 20.11.06 EXT.P7. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN MVARP NO.550/06 DT. 5.2.07 /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 14561 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 14th day of September, 2007 J U D G M E N T Ext.P7 order of the 1st respondent is under challenge. Petitioner made an application for conversion of his existing LSOS into LSFP permit and that was declined by the 2nd respondent by Ext.P4. Ext.P6 revision was filed against Ext.P4 and the revision was also dismissed by Ext.P7. In Exts. P4 and P7, the reasons stated are the same. According to the Tribunal the conversion will make it more onerous to the passengers and the students will not be able to make use of the bus. Learned counsel makes reference to Ext.P3 proceedings of the 2nd respondent. In its meeting held on 29.5.06, where also a similar request was considered and was allowed. The reasons which are assigned in Ext.P3 and what is mentioned in Ext.P4 are contradictory. Therefore this matter requires to be reconsidered. 2. Accordingly I quash Exts.P4 and P7. There will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner’s application and pass orders thereon at any rate within a period of six weeks from WPC NO.14561/07 Page numbers the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before 2nd respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE vps WPC NO.14561/07 Page numbers ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE OP NO.16383/98 JUDGMENT 5TH SEPTEMBER, 2007