IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2010 / 12TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 5995 of 2010(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.O.AUGUSTINE, S/O.OUSEPH, AGED 65, PANDAMPADATHIL, VAYALA P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.C.CHARLES SRI.M.POLY MATHAI SRI.P.CHELLAPPAN SRI.VIMAL K.CHARLES SMT.A.T.RENJU SRI.E.N.HARI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. N.S.SUDARSANAN NAIR, S/O.SREEDHARAN NAIR, AGED ABOUT 40, NEDIYAPALACKAL, ELACKAD, VAYALA KARA, VAYALA-686 587, PALA. 2. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. 4. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, R.T.O.OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. 5. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN FOR R1 SRI.PRASAD CHANDRAN FOR R1 SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR,SC, KSRTC FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.5995 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF JUNE, 2010 JUDGMENT The complaint of the petitioner is regarding the route through which Kerala State Road Transport Corporation(KSRTC) is conducting services. According to the petitioner, the second respondent was earlier operating through the route Pala - Ernakulam via Kidangur, Payasappady, Vayala, Kuravilangadu, Kaduthuruthy, Vaikom and Tripunithura. The petitioner alleges that the route has been changed and the second respondent is presently operating through the route Pala - Ernakulam via Kidangur, Koodallur Market, Vayala, Kuravilangadu, Kaduthuruthy, Vaikom and Tripunithura. It is further alleged that the second respondent is conducting service without any permit. As per Ext.P2 judgment, it has been directed that if the second respondent is operating through the route without permit, the concerned authority would take appropriate action. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 representation to the fourth respondent routing the same through the third respondent. However, it is submitted that Wpc 5995/2010 2 respondents 3 and 4 have not taken any decision in the matter, till date. Therefore, the petitioner seeks appropriate directions for an expeditious disposal of his representation. Adv.V.V.Nandagopal Nambiar appears for the second respondent and Adv.V.G.Arun appears for the first respondent. The counsel have no objection to such a direction being issued. 2. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the fourth respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, evidenced herein by Ext.P3, in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, with notice to the other respondents also. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk