IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST MARCH 2007 / 30TH PHALGUNA 1928 WP(C).No. 19345 of 2005(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.N.NEELAKANDAN NAMBOODIRI, AGED 54, S/O.K.C.NARAYANAN NAMBOODIRI, KARIPPAL MANA, NEDUMPURA, CHERUTHURUTHY, TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. 3. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, PALAKKAD. 4. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SHRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/03/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM P.ST.S.A. FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 27.12.2003 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 27.12.2003 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 31.5.2004 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM AS MVAA NO. 696 OF 2004 (WITHOUT EXHIBITS) FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 13.9.2004 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN MVAA NO. 696/04 DATED NIL. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN MVAA NO. 696/04 DATED 28.10.2004 EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN MVAA NO. 696/04 DATED 17.5.2005 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 19345 OF 2005 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of March, 2007 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging STAT's order confirming denial of regular permit by RTA. The only ground on which STAT sustained denial of permit is overlapping on route in the supplementation scheme. This Court vide decision in RAHUL TOM V. KSRTC, (2001) 3 KLT 261, held that no new permit can be granted overlapping supplementation scheme. In the circumstances, as of now, petitioner is not entitled to permit in the route applied for. However, if matter is pending before the Supreme Court and the decision of the Supreme Court entitles the petitioner for a permit then there will be direction to the RTA to go by the decision of the Supreme Court and consider petitioner's application for permit afresh and grant it if he is eligible under the judgment of the Supreme Court. W.P. is disposed of as above. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge 2