IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 23RD MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 37626 of 2007(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SHIBI AJITH, W/O. AJITHKUMAR, PADOOR HOUSE, P.O. ANTHIKAD, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR. 3. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THRISSUR. ADDL.R4. K.A.NAZEER, S/O ABBAS, KIZHUVALIPARAMBIL, CHERPU WEST VILLAGE, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER K.A.NAMEER, S/O ABBAS, KIZHUVALIPARAMBIL, CHERPU WEST VILLAGE, THRISSUR. (ADDL.R4 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN IA NO.989/08 DATED 12/2/2008) BY ADV. SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, KSRTC GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN FOR ADDL.R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.37626/07 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: PHOTOCOPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT, VIDE NO.G/2314/06/R DATED 18.1.2007, REFERRED TO IN THE WRIT PETITION. EXT.P2: PHOTOCOPY OF NOTIFICATION NO.12951/B1/2001/TRAN. DATED 9.5.2006 REFERRED TO IN THE WRIT PETITION. EXT.P3: ROUGH SKETCH OF THE ROUTE, REFERRED TO IN THE WRIT PETITION. EXT.P4: PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT OF THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DATED 28.5.2007 RENDERED IN MVAA NO.207/2007. EXT.P5: PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT OF THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DATED 7.3.07 RENDERED IN MVAA NO.811/2006. EXHIBITS OF R1 EXT.R1: PHOTOCOPY OF RELEVANT PORTIONOF AGENDA (ITEM NO.64) VIDE G/6522/2007 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED 18.8.2007. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =================== W.P.(C) NO.37626 OF 2007 D =========================== Dated this the 12 th day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Exts. P1 and P4. By Ext.P1, the RTA rejected the application made by the petitioner on the ground of overlapping for more than 10% of the route length, following the notification dated 9/5/06. Against Ext.P1, an appeal was filed to the Tribunal and that was rejected by Ext.P4. By the time the appeal was heard, the notification dated 9/5/07 had come into force and apparently in view of this, petitioner offered to modify the route applied for. However, finding that the modified route is not by avoiding the overlapping sector, the Tribunal has rejected the appeal. It is in this background this writ petition has been filed. 2. All that the counsel seeks now is that the petitioner may be permitted to modify the route applied for in such a manner that it WPC 37626/07 :2 : satisfies the requirements of the notification dated 9/5/07 and on that basis, the application may be directed to be considered by the RTA. Now that 9/5/06 notification based on which the application was considered is no longer there and that the same is replaced by the notification dated 9/5/07, I do not think there is any justification for declining the relief that is sought for. 3. Accordingly, quashing Exts. P1 and P4, I direct that the RTA shall reconsider the application made by the petitioner on the petitioner modifying the route applied for consistent with the requirements of the notification dated 9/5/07. Subject to the petitioner making the application as above, the RTA shall reconsider the matter with notice to KSRTC and other affected parties, within two months thereafter. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp