IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2009 / 25TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1432 of 2009(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, KULANGARA VEEDU KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANPORT AUTHORITY KOLLAM REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. 2. THE SECREARY REGIONAL TRANPORT AUTHORITY ,KOLLAM. 3. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER K.S.R.T.C,KOLLAM. BY SC SRI. K. PRABHAKARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No. 1432 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P7 and P9. petitioner contends that on the route Karette- Pozhikkara in the defaulted vacancy of a regular service, he was granted temporary permit and last of which was Ext.P5 valid up to 20.10.2008. As it was expiring the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 for the reissue of the temporary permit and that application was rejected by Ext.P7 order of the 2nd respondent. The reason stated is that the Government had issued a draft notification on 15.9.2008 and the route applied for by the petitioner was in violation of the said notification. An appeal, MVAA.NO.575/08, was filed against Ext.P7 and that was rejected for the same reason as per Ext.P9 judgment. It is the correctness of Exts.P7 and P9 which is impugned in this writ petition. WP(c).No.1432/2009 2 2. Counsel contends that the pendency of the draft notification cannot stand in the way of considering his application for temporary permit and he relies on Section 99(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. A reading of the aforesaid section makes it clear that the said section does not stand in the way of the authorities granting temporary permit on the route covered by the draft notification. This position has been clarified by this court, in the context of the notification dated 15.9.2008, in the judgment in WP(c).No.33911/08. 3. In view of the above, Exts.P7 and P9 will stand quashed and the 2nd respondent is directed to consider Ext.P6 on merits and pass orders thereon with notice to the KSRTC, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.1432/2009 3