IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 1ST OCTOBER 2010 / 9TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 23074 of 2010(H) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ P.P.VASUDEVAN, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O. KANARAN, PONNADIPARAMBIL HOUSE, MOKAVOOR.P.O, ERNHIKKAL, KOZHIKODE-3. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.FAYAZ RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOZHIKKODE - 673 020, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE - 673 020. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 23074 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Tlhe petitioner has been operating stage carriage service on the route Karuvathiruthy - Medical College with stage carriage bearing registration No. KL-11-X-871. According to the petitioner, he has been operating the said service in the vacancy occurred on account of cessation of operation of stage carriage service by the regular permit holder with stage carriage bearing registration Nos. KL-7-P- 4122 and KL-7-H-7756. In the said circumstances, the petitioner has applied for regular permit as per Ext.P3 application. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the receipt of Ext.P3 application, no decision has been taken thereon. The petitioner has yet another grievance. According to him the authorities used to grant temporary permit on remittance of the requisite fee of Rs.1,000/- only for 20 days. It is permissible to grant temporary permit for 4 months with the same rate, it is contended. According to him the temporary permit now granted to him is due to expire. WPC.23074/2010 : 2 : Therefore, he seeks a direction to the authorities to consider whether after receiving the same rate of fee, the temporary permit for 4 months could be granted instead of 20 days' temporary permit. I am of the view that these matters are to be considered by the concerned authority in accordance with law. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader. The learned Government Pleader submitted that as on today, there is no vacancy at all. 3. Admittedly, Ext.P3 application for regular permit submitted by the petitioner is pending before the first respondent. Therefore, without making any observation as to the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 application in accordance with law, expeditiously, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with notice to the petitioner as also the other operators on the route. WPC.23074/2010 : 3 : 4. With respect to the grievance of the petitioner regarding the action on the part of respondents in issuing temporary permits with validity only for 20 days, despite the provision for granting the same for 4 months with the same rate, I do not think that this Court will be justified in passing any orders. It is a matter to be decided by the competent authority in accordance with law. That apart, the period of temporary permit issued to the petitioner is still in force. Therefore, at the time of submitting the application for re- issuance of temporary permit, it will be open to the petitioner to make such a request before the competent authority viz., the second respondent in which event, the second respondent shall consider the said issue in accordance with law. This Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge