IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH MAY 2010 / 28TH VAISAKHA 1932 RP.No. 811 of 2008(G) ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.6786/2005 Dated 09/09/2006 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): /WRIT PETITIONER ------------------------------------ SRI. ABOOBACKER, SHAJI MANZIL, VAYYANAM P.O., AYOOR, KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM. 2. SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM. 3. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY D.T.O, KOLLAM. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.S.MUHAMED HASHIM THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ----------------------------------------------------- REVIEW PETITION No.811 OF 2008 IN W.P.(C) No.6786 of 2005 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a stage carriage operator who was conducting services on the route Kadakkal-Punalur on the strength of a regular permit, that was valid for five years from 12.12.1997 to 11.12.2002. On 25.10.2002, he filed an application for the renewal of his permit for a further period of 5 years from 11.12.2002. However, by proceedings dated 25.10.2003, the second respondent rejected his renewal application for the reason that a portion of his route from Anchal to Punalur which covers a distance of 12.5 kms. overlaps the Thiruvananthapuram- Kottayam, notified route. The petitioner challenged the said proceedings before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in MVAA No.303 of 2003. The Tribunal relying on the decision of this Court reported in Rahul Tom v KSRTC Employees Association (2001(3) KLT 261) dismissed the appeal. R.P.No.811/2008 2 2. The petitioner challenged the dismissal of his appeal before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.6786 of 2005, in which the judgment that is sought to be reviewed has been passed. 3. While disposing of the Writ Petition, W.P.(C) No.6786/2005, this Court found that the rejection of the petitioner's application was justified. However, since the notification had been issued by the State permitting overlapping on the notified route to a limited extent, the petitioner was permitted to file a fresh application for permit on the route, in the light of the notification covering the said route. He has also been permitted to pursue the said application. 4. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, though the petitioner submitted a fresh application, the same has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner's application could not be considered in the light of the provisions of the notification. The rejection of the petitioner's application has been confirmed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in appeal. Though the petitioner challenged the same by filing W.P.(C) No.17244 R.P.No.811/2008 3 of 2008, as per Annexure- (J) order, it was found that no relief could be granted in the absence of a clarification of Annexure-B judgment. The said Writ Petition was subsequently withdrawn, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to seek clarification of Annexure-B judgment. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed the present Review Petition. 5. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was an existing operator as on the date of the draft notification referred to in Annexure-B judgment. Therefore, in terms of the provisions contained therein, evidenced herein by Annexures A & F, the right of the existing operators for renewal of their permits has been saved. In view of the above, the petitioner was entitled to a renewal of his permit even on the date of Annexure-B judgment. However, renewal of his permit has not been granted only for the reason that this Court had directed the petitioner to submit a fresh application for the issue of permit. A reading of Annexure-B judgment clearly shows that the petitioner's application was treated as an application submitted by an existing operator whose R.P.No.811/2008 4 permit had been saved as stated above. Therefore, the rejection of the petitioner's application for the renewal of his permit treating the same as a fresh application is unjustified. 6. In view of the above, this Review Petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioner as an application for renewal submitted by an operator who was conducting services as on the date of the draft notification and to pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law. Such orders as indicated above shall be passed 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. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/