IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2009 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 10772 of 2009(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ 1. JENSE JOSEPH, PERUNNAKKATTU HOUSE, RAMAPURAM, PALA. 2. RONY MATHEW, CHOLIKKARA HOUSE, RAMAPURAM BAZAR, PALA. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECREATARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/04/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO.10773 & 10805/09 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NOs. 10772, 10773 & 10805 OF 2009 ============================== Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2009 J U D G M E N T While in WP(C) No.10772/09, transfer and renewal are involved, in WP(C) Nos.10773 & 10805/09 only renewal of permit is the issue involved. It is stated that the 1st respondent RTA has indefinitely adjourned the applications made by the petitioners primarily on the ground that the route in question is covered by the draft notification dated 15/9/2008. In similar cases, this Court has expressed the view that if the route applied for is covered by the notification, and for some other reason it is impermissible to grant renewal, instead of adjourning the matter as done in these cases should pass final orders. In these cases also since what has been done is indefinite adjournment, the writ petitions are disposed of directing that the applications made by the petitioners for transfer and renewal as sought for by them shall be considered by the RTA and final orders shall be passed. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 3 months of production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp