IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2008 / 10TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 6750 of 2008(C) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- ANIL KUMAR M., S/O. MADHAVAN, AGED 45 YEARS, "AYILLIAM", EDATHARA P.O., KADAKKAL, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM. BY K.C. SANTHA KUMARI, GOVERENMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 6750 of 2008(C) -2- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT. P1 - PHOTOCOPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO. G1/[C1]/9869/Q OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT 5.11.2007. EXT.P2 - PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT, DATED 11.12.2007 IN W.P.[C] NO. 35178/2007 K / TRUE COPY / PA TO JUDGE rhs S.SIRI JAGAN, J ================== W.P (C) .No. 6750 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 1st day of July, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the holder of a stage carriage permit. The petitioner applied for concurrence of renewal of the permit within the time stipulated. The same came up for consideration before the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent as per Ext.P1 adjourned the matter till the disposal of the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal [Civil] No. 9466/2007 filed by the K.S.R.T.C. before the Honorable Supreme Court of India. The petitioner would contend that the Special Leave Petition does not have any relation to the permit in question and in fact by Ext.P2 judgment in another case relating to the same scheme, this court had directed consideration of application for concurrence for renewal of permit. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs : 1) “issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 1st W.P (C) .No. 6750 of 2008 - 2 - respondent to consider the request of Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Attingal, for granting concurrence for renewal of regular permit on the route, Chirayinkil- Sasthannada [Via] Attingal, Kallambalam, Pallickal,Nilamel, Kadakkal and Madathara, within a period of 3 weeks. 2) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 1st respondent to grant concurrence in favour of the petitioner for the permit, Chirayinkil-Sasthannada [Via] Attingal, Kallambalam, Pallickal, Nilamel, Kadakkal and Madathara, untrammeled by SLP[Civil] No.9466/2007 filed by K.S.R.T.C. before the Honorable Supreme Court of India.” 2. The learned Government Pleader submits that in view of the pendency of S.L.P. the petitioner's application for concurrence for renewal of permit cannot be considered now. 3. I have heard the parties. 4. It is not disputed before me that Ext.P2 judgment is in respect of the same scheme as in the petitioner's case. That being so that judgment would squarely apply to this case. The said judgment reads thus: “Ext.P1 proceedings of the 1st respondent evidences that regular permit application made by the petitioner has been deferred in view of the pendency of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9466/07 filed by the KSRTC before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. W.P (C) .No. 6750 of 2008 - 3 - Counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the subject matter of SLP has not connection with his case and therefore there is no justification for deferring the matter indefinitely. 2. Since the petitioner has made an application for regular permit and it is her specific case that the route in question is not covered by the subject matter of the case that is referred to in Ext.P1, it is only proper that the 1st respondent considers her application. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to take up and consider the application made by the petitioner for regular permit, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment.” Therefore following the said judgment, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to take up and consider the application made by the petitioner for concurrence of renewal of permit, on merits without reference to the SLP, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs