IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 22ND MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1353 of 2009(J) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- P.D.SAJAN, KUTTATHUPARAMBIL THEKKEVELI HOUSE, CHERTHALA SOUTH PO., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ALAPUZHA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY 2. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. 3. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. C.K.PURUSHOTHAMAN, CHALIL HOUSE, THIRUNALLOOR POST, CHERTHALA. 5. N.R.JOY, SANTHALAYAM, MAYITHARA POST, CHERTHALA, ALAPUZHA. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH SRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC,KSRTC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 1353 OF 2009 (J) ==================== Dated this the 11th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner made an application for regular permit on the route Cherthala-Aroormukkom. That was rejected by Ext.P1 proceedings of the RTA. He carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal by filing MVAA No.217/08 and pursuant to the orders passed by the Tribunal, petitioner submitted a modified route for the reconsideration of the RTA. The modified route is Cherthala-Aroor Temple. That again was rejected by the RTA by Ext.P2 proceedings on the ground that the route portion from Cherthala Iron Bridge Junction to Cherthala Court Junction lies in the notified route. 2. Though the petitioner did not carry the matter in appeal, he is now seeking to challenge Ext.P2 decision of the RTA, on the ground that the findings in Ext.P2 runs counter to Exts.P3 and P4, proceedings of the RTA itself. A reading of Exts.P3 and P4 shows that in respect of the same route, overlapping has been found to be inevitable, and on that basis, permit has been granted. 3. In view of the apparent contradiction in the conclusions in Exts.P2 and P3 and P4, learned Government Pleader was directed to obtain instructions. WPC 1353/09 :2 : 4. Today, it is reported by the learned Government Pleader that the conclusions in the cases covered by Exts.P3 and P4 were entered into by the STAT on the ground that the overlapping in question were inevitable. It is stated that the RTA was only carrying out the directions issued by the STAT and that in so far as the petitioner is concerned, there was no such similar direction. 5. Though factually the submission made by the learned Government Pleader that the RTA was only carrying out the direction issued by the STAT is correct, still fact remains that the conclusions in Exts.P2 and P3 and P4 are contradictory in nature. Therefore what is required to be done is that the RTA should reconsider the modified proposal submitted by the petitioner and enquire whether the overlapping of 0.3 kms mentioned in Ext.P2 is inevitable or not. On such examination, if the overlapping in question is found to be inevitable, there is no reason why the petitioner should be treated in a different manner. 6. Therefore, Ext.P2 will stand quashed and the 1st respondent shall reconsider the request made by the petitioner in the light of Exts.P3 and P4, and pass fresh orders. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 8 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE