IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2010 / 15TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23490 of 2010(I) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ V.K.SREEKUMAR, VATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE DESOM P.O., ALUVA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN-676 505. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM, PIN-676 505. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 23490 OF 2010 I ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th August, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is a stage carriage operator conducting services on the route Ernakulam South – Kozhikode with stage carriage vehicle bearing registration No:KL-10/AE 2873 as a limited stop ordinary service ('LSOS' for short). The route length of the petitioner is 197 kms and therefore, as per the amendments to the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules dated 3/2/1999, it is not permissible for the petitioner to operate his services as an LSOS. Therefore, the petitioner has applied for the conversion of his service as a super fast one. An application for variation as a super fast service is thus pending consideration of the first respondent. However, as per Ext.P3 proceedings, the petitioner's application has been adjourned indefinitely since the authority “is waiting for the notification redefining the fleet owner.” 2. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that requirement of being a fleet owner is no longer necessary for the reason that the definition thereof has been struck down by a Division Bench of this Court. The petitioner also relies on the judgment dated 7/10/2009 of a Single Bench of this Court in WP(C) WPC 23490/2010 2 14782/2009 to submit that the first respondent is bound to consider the petitioner's application without waiting for any such notification redefining the expression “fleet owner”. I have heard the learned senior Govt. Pleader Mr.K.C.Santhosh Kumar also. 3. In view of the fact that the requirement of being a fleet owner is no longer necessary, the definition thereof having been struck down by a Division Bench of this Court, the impugned action of the first respondent in adjourning the petitioner's application indefinitely awaiting a notification redefining the said expression, is without any justification. Therefore, the first respondent is bound to consider the petitioner's application on the merits, without further delay. 4. In the above circumstances this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the application for variation of his permit submitted by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible and to pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment or by placing it in the next meeting of the first respondent whichever is earlier. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 23490/2010 3 WPC 23490/2010 4