IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2008 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 2449 of 2008(N) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------ SIDHIQUAL AKBAR, MUBARAK MANZIL, VANDIPERIYAR. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, IDUKKI REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, IDUKKI. 3. THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C., KUMALY. 4. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.R.SABU BY ADV. SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.2449/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER VALID FROM 16.7.06 TO 15.7.07. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE IST RESPONDENT DT. 9.7.07. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE REVISION MEMORANDUM AS MVARP. NO.419/07 DT. 5.9.07 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL DT. 7.11.07. EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT TRIBUNAL IN M.V.A.R.P. NO.419/07 DT. 14.11.07. EXT.P6:- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER ATTACHED TO THE OFFICE OF RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 DT. 21.12.07. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 2449 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: MARCH 25, 2008 JUDGMENT The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P2 as confirmed in Ext.P5. Matters identical to the one arising in this writ petition was considered by this court in W.P.(C) No.2491/2008 and the writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 6th March, 2008 directing re-consideration by the 1st respondent. The aforesaid judgment was rendered referring to the information received by the petitioner invoking the provisions of the Right to Information Act which contradicted the conclusion of the RTA as confirmed by the STAT. In this case similar information has been received and Ext.P6 has been produced to show that the finding of the RTA in Ext.P2 as confirmed by the STAT in Ext.P5 is incorrect. 2. In view of the aforesaid reasoning, Exts.P2 and P5 will stand quashed and the matter shall stand remitted to the 1st respondent for reconsideration. The 1st respondent shall issue notice to the KSRTC also and after hearing the KSRTC, the 1st WP(C) 2449/08 Page numbers respondent shall pass revised orders in the matter. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-