IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2008 / 20TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 15070 of 2008(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- C.SHARAFUDHEEN, S/O.VEERANKUTTY, CHEENIKKAL HOUSE, MUTHUR, P.O.TIRUR, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL SIVARAMAN SRI.HARIKRISHNAN RAVINDRAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, RTA, KOZHIKODE. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2008, THE COURT ON 11/07/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.15070/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF PERMIT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RTA,MALAPPURAM DTD 15.11.07. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY PERMIT GRANTED IN THE YEAR 1992 ALONG WITH THE RENEWAL UPTO 2007. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE RTA, ERNAKULAM DT 27.11.2007. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE RTA, THRISSUR DT. 5.1.2008. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE RTA,KOZHIKODE DTD. 11.3.2008. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ==================== W.P.(C) NO. 15070 OF 2008 R ==================== Dated this the 11th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner seeks to quash Ext.P5 proceedings of the RTA, Kozhikode rejecting concurrence for the renewal of his regular permit. 2. The facts are that the petitioner was granted a regular permit as a Limited Stop Fast Passenger on the route Kozhikode Corporation Bus stand to Ernakulam South Bus stand. The permit was granted in 1992 and was countersigned by the other R.T.As through whose jurisdiction the route extends. As the renewed permit was expiring on 14.12.2007, he made Ext.P1 application for renewal of Ext.P2 permit. It is stated that the Secretary, RTA Malappuram sought concurrence of RTA at Kozhikode, Trichur and Ernakulam and that the R.T.As. at Ernakulam and Trichur granted concurrence by Exts. P3 and P4. In so far as RTA, Kozhikode is concerned, the matter was considered on 11/3/2008 without notice to the petitioner and by Ext.P5 proceedings rejected the concurrence under Rule 2 (ea) of KMV Rules since the route length exceeds 160 Kms. It is challenging Ext.P5, the writ petition is filed. 3. Although the petitioner has raised various contentions on the merits of the order, what is mainly contended is that Ext.P5 order was WPC 15070/08 : 2 : passed without notice to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the Division Bench judgment of this court in WA 123/08 in support of his plea. That was also a case where concurrence was rejected by an RTA without notice to the applicant. For the only reason that notice was not issued to the applicant, it was held that the decision was violative of the principles of natural justice and accordingly was quashed. In this case also, Ext.P5 is the decision and it is the specific case of the petitioner that the said proceedings was passed without notice to him. A reading of Ext.P5 also in no manner indicates that the petitioner was issued any notice before the decision was taken. If that be so, the law laid down by the Division Bench in its judgment in WA No.123/08 applies to the case of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P5 and directing that the RTA, Kozhikode shall reconsider the request for concurrence based on the request made by the Secretary, RTA, Malappuram on the application of the petitioner for renewal of his permit, after issuing notice and affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp