IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 6057 of 2009(B) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ RAJANI, W/O RAMACHANDRAN, SHIBU BHAVANAM, KATTILKKADAVU, KARUNAGAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOLLAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 6057 OF 2009 (B) ==================== Dated this the 25th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that on 26/9/2006, she made an application for a regular permit. On the ground of objectionable overlapping, that was rejected by Ext.P1 order. An appeal was filed before the Tribunal and the Tribunal disposed of the appeal by Ext.P2, directing reconsideration of the application in the light of Ext.P3 and the judgment of the Karnataka High court in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal {ILR 1996 KAR 770}. 2. However, instead of examining whether the overlapping was inevitable or not, the RTA rejected the application by Ext.P4. Again the petitioner filed an appeal and that was disposed of by Ext.P5 directing that the matter should be reconsidered strictly as directed on the previous occasion. Petitioner complains that the matter was taken up by the RTA again, and by Ext.P6, the application was deferred calling for a report as to the actual extent of overlapping. 3. Irrespective of its necessity or otherwise, now it is seen that Ext.P7 report also has been submitted to the effect that the overlapping covers only 1.6 kms. It is stated that inspite of having received Ext.P7, the WPC 6057/09 :2 : RTA has not taken up the application for consideration as directed by the STAT in Ext.P5. 4. Evidently, the petitioner has been fighting for getting the permit sought for by her in her application dated 26/9/06. Twice she had to approach the Tribunal and this is the third occasion when the RTA is to consider the matter. Having regard to the long delay in this process, I direct that the application made by the petitioner shall be considered by the RTA, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 6 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp