IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2008 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 7121 of 2008(W) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ K.NOORUDEENKUNJU ,KADAVINTHALAKKAL VENGARA, THODIYOOR P.O.,KARUNAGAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION REP. BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C. - R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO. 7121/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER ON THE ROUTE KARUNAGAPPALLY HIGH SCHOOL JUNCTION PATHANAPURAM VALID UP TO 11.3.1998. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE IST RESPONDENT ADJOURNING THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER DT. 5.11.07. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 7121 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: MAY 29, 2008 JUDGMENT Ext.P1 is the permit granted to the petitioner, the renewal of which was sought by him by filing an application to the 1st respondent. It was considered by the 1st respondent and as is seen from Ext.P2, the same was adjourned in view of the pendency of SLP No.9466 of 2007 filed by the KSRTC before the Apex Court. The matter has not been considered thereafter, hence this writ petition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the SLP referred to above is irrelevant in so far as the renewal sought for by the petitioner is concerned and therefore there is no justification for the indefinite postponement of consideration of his application. Respondent has not been able to satisfy me that the SLP referred to above, is of any relevance so far as the renewal application is concerned. 2. In view of the above facts, what is necessary is to direct that the 1st respondent should consider the renewal application made by the WP(C) 7121 of 2008 2 petitioner. This, the 1st respondent shall do as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-