IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2008 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 7884 of 2008(L) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MOHAMMED ABDULLA, S/O.ABDULLA HAJI, RESIDING AT MUMTHUS MANZIL, NEDUVA AMSOM, PARAPPANANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTONEY HOLDER, MOHAMMED SIRAJ. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, TIRUR. 4. MOHAMMEDALI HAJI, KUTTIYIL HOUSE, PANTHARANGADI, VIA THIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 7884 OF 2008 - L = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T In this writ petition the complaint of the petitioner is that without considering the objection raised, transfer of permit was allowed by the respondent by Ext. P3. 2. Ext.P3 is the proceedings of the RTA held on 27.12.2007. Even according to the petitioner, Exts. P1 and P2 are the objections that he had filed only on 29.12.2007. Therefore, the petitioner cannot contend that the RTA should have taken note of Exts. P1 and P2 while deciding on the application of transfer made by the 4th respondent. True, Ext. P3 carries the date 27.2.2008, but then that was a date of the signature. But the resolution was on 27.12.2007. If that be so, the RTA cannot be faulted for having resolved to take Ext. P3 decision. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-