IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2010 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 9857 of 2010(F) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- M.C.SHAMSUDHEEN, AGED 32, S/O.KUNJU MOHAMMED, MUSLIM VEETTIL, CHEENAPPILLY HOUSE, KOZHIKULANGARA, CHAVAKKAD. BY ADVS. MR.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON, MR.M.JITHESH MENON. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.9857 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a stage carriage operator. He was earlier conducting services on the route Anchangadi- Kunnamkulam - Guruvayur - Chavakkad, which was surrendered. Subsequently, he applied for the issue of a regular permit over the very same route in the very same vacancy by offering a vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-8/S 1221. However, the said application was rejected by the first respondent on the ground that there was overlapping on the notified route. The petitioner challenged the same before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in MVAA No.247/2007. The appeal was allowed and the matter was directed to be re-considered on condition that the petitioner submits a modified application, avoiding the overlapping, within a month therefrom. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 request for modification. However, no orders have been passed thereon till date. 2. While so, the Government has come out with the final notification dated 14.7.2009 which permits wpc No.9857/2010 2 overlapping on the notified route to an extent of 5% of the route or 5 kms. whichever is less. According to the petitioner, in the light of the above provision in the final notification, it is not necessary to modify his earlier proposal. Therefore, he has submitted Ext.P3 representation. The petitioner seeks appropriate directions for the consideration of Ext.P3 also while considering his application for the issue of regular permit. The learned Senior Government Pleader has no objection to such a direction being issued. 3. In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the request of the petitioner contained in Ext.P3 also while considering his request for the issue of a regular permit in the light of Ext.P2. Since the application of the petitioner has been pending since 2007, the matter shall be considered and appropriate orders passed, expeditiously and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/