IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2010 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 30418 of 2010(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- N.P.SASEENDRAN, S/O.KRISHNAN H.NO.2F/IX, PILICODE, VALIYAPOIL, P.O.OLAT. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY KASARAGOD, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY KASARAGOD. 3. THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION PAYYANNUR. 4. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION , REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SHRI P.BENJAMIN PAUL,SC, KSRTC FOR R3 & 4 SHRI BASANT BALAJI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jma C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 30418 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an existing operator on the route Pallippara-Korom. This writ petition has been filed mainly with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents 1 and 2 to consider Ext.P3 request and take appropriate steps to prevent illegal operation of KSRTC services on the route Payyannur-Cheemeni without having legal and valid permits issued by the authority. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed in this writ petition by the second respondent. Paragraph 4 thereunder reads thus:- 4. Even though there is no such complaint as claimed by the petitioner received in the office of the Regional Transport Authority, Kasargod, in the light of the writ petition, a memo has been issued to the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Sub R.T. Office, Kanhangad to enquire and report the genuineness of the complaint and action will be taken based on the report received from the competent authority. It is thus evident that according to the respondents Ext.P3 complaint alleged to have been submitted by the petitioner was not actually received by the second respondent. However, in the light of the contentions raised in this writ WPC.30418/2010 : 2 : petition, instructions have been issued to the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Sub Regional Transport Office, Kanhangad to enquire into allegation. It is further stated thereunder that on receipt of the report from the said competent authority, further action would be taken. Recording the above said statement in the counter affidavit, this writ petition is closed. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge