IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2009 / 20TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22749 of 2009(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- GANGA, W/O. SIVAKUMAR, AGED 30, ERAMPURAKKAL HOUSE, PERUMALPADI, MALIPPURAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON SRI.M.JITHESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.22749 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner made an application for a regular permit on the route Ernakulam High Court Junction-Narakkal via Light House, in the vacancy caused by the cessation of operation of KL-9/L-660. The petitioner also proposed consequent timings of the said service. 2. The Regional Transport Authority took a decision postponing the consideration of the application, as evidenced by Ext.P2. Apparently, that was for the reason that, according to the Regional Transport Authority, the route proposed by the petitioner would have the High Court Junction as its termini and there is also traffic congestion at the High Court Junction. W.P.(C).No.22749 of 2009 :: 2 :: 3. The petitioner points out that the defaulted service also had termini at the High Court junction, as evidenced by Ext.P4. The Regional Transport Authority had again decided to adjourn the matter with a direction to call for the remarks from the Commissioner of Police. That decision has been challenged in the writ petition. 4. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. 5. I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Regional Transport Authority should take a decision on the application for regular permit submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law. No purpose will be served by repeated adjournments of the application. W.P.(C).No.22749 of 2009 :: 3 :: 6. Accordingly, Ext.P4 is quashed and the 1st respondent is directed to take a decision on Ext.P1 application, in accordance with law within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge