IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2010 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 32014 of 2010(B) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ K.P.MAHESH, MAHESH MANDIRAM, MARIATHURUTHU P.O., KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER T.C.THOMAS, THAKKADIYELPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHANNANIKAD P.O. CHENNANIKADU KARA, PANACHIKKADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM-686 002. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.32014 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a stage carriage operator operating on the route Cherthala-Kottayam with stage carriage bearing registration No.KL 35/3802. He has submitted Ext.P2 application for issuing permit less/clearance certificate without cancelling the existing permit. To enable the respondent to consider the question involved in the matter, the petitioner has brought to the notice of the respondent a decision of this Court in W.P.(C).NO.14388/2010. After such a consideration, the respondent passed Ext.P5. It is challenging Ext.P5 that this Writ Petition has been filed. 2. Evidently, as per Ext.P2, the petitioner claimed that he is similarly circumstanced to the petitioner in W.P.(C).NO.14388 of 2010. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is in the said circumstances that the petitioner has relied on Ext.P1 judgment referred to in Ext.P5. However, a perusal of Ext.P5 would reveal that without giving due regard to the said decision, virtually, the respondent after holding that W.P.(C) NO.32014/2010 2 there is no provision for issuing the permitless/clearance certificate to the vehicle without cancelling the existing permit refused to consider the application. An authority is not supposed to reject such an application without carefully considering the contents of the judgment in W.P.(C).NO. 14388/2010. Before making a sweeping observation and rejecting the request, the respondent should have considered the request made by the petitioner in the light of the decision of this court in W.P.(C).NO. 14388/2001. When a judgment of this Court is brought to the attention of an authority while considering an application, that authority is bound to take into consideration of the same, of course, in the light of the facts involved in the case on hand. In the said circumstances, I am of the considered view that the respondent was not at all justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner without proper application of mind. He should have been considered the application on merits and in accordance with law and for that purpose should have considered judgment in W.P. (C).NO. 14388/2010 as well. Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to consider Ext.P2 application submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law, untramelled by the observation made in Ext.P5. Ext.P5 cannot be construed as an order and even W.P.(C) NO.32014/2010 3 according to the respondent, it is only a letter for passing the information. Such orders shall be passed expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.32014/2010 4 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.32014/2010 5