IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2010 / 24TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17058 of 2010(F) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- K.T.THOMAS,KONDODICKAL HOUSE,UMBIDI.PO, THOTTAKAD,CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, IDUKKI,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, IDUKKI. 2. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR R2 BY ADV. SRI. V.V. NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR, SC, KSRTC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/06/2010 ALONG WITH WPC.NO.17061 OF 2010 AND WPC. NO.17198 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KSS K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) Nos.17058 of 2010, 17061 of 2010 and 17198 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The complaint raised by the petitioners in all these cases relate to the non-consideration of their applications to convert Limited Stop Ordinary Services ('LSOS' for short) conducted by them into Limited Stop Fast Passenger Services ('LSFS' for short). Since the issues raised are common, all the three Writ Petitions are disposed of together. 2. The petitioners are stage carriage operators conducting services on the strength of regular permits issued to them. The length of their routes extend beyond the permissible limit and as per the rules, they are at present not entitled to operate their services as LSOS. This is because, as per Rule 2(oa), 140 kms. is the route length prescribed for ordinary services. As per Rule 2(ea), if the route length is above 70 kms. and less than 160 kms., the services can be conducted only as LSFS. It is in wpc No.17058/2010 & conn.cases 2 the above circumstances that applications have been submitted by the petitioners in all these writ petitions for the conversion of their services into LSFS. However, as per the order which is impugned in these proceedings, their applications have been adjourned indefinitely, without any orders being passed thereon. Therefore, the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.17058/2010 and W.P.(C) No.17061/2010 have challenged Ext.P3 proceedings, while the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.17198/2010 has challenged Ext.P2. 3. The counsel for the petitioners relies on the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.14744 of 2009 dated 7.10.2009 evidenced in W.P.(C) Nos.17058/2010 and 17061/2010 by Ext.P5 and by Ext.P4 in W.P.(C) No.17198/2010. In view of the dictum laid down by this Court in the judgment referred to above, it is submitted that the reasons on the basis of which the impugned orders in these Writ Petitions have been passed are unsustainable. Therefore, it is pointed out that there is absolutely no justification for not considering the applications submitted by the petitioners. wpc No.17058/2010 & conn.cases 3 4. I have heard the learned Senior Government Pleader Mr.K.C.Santhosh Kumar, Mr.V.V.Nandagopalan Nambiar, the Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation as well as Mr.P.Deepak who appears for the petitioner. It is submitted by the counsel for the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) that the judgment relied on by the counsel for the petitioners is the subject matter of Writ Appeal Nos.14, 20, 22 and 23 of 2010 and 2900 of 2009, which are still pending. Though writ appeals are pending against the judgment referred to above, it is not necessary to defer consideration of the applications in these cases awaiting the decision in the writ appeals. If the decision is ultimately set aside, the orders to be passed in these cases would also have to abide by such decision. The above being the legal position, it is not necessary to keep the applications of the petitioners pending. 5. In view of the dictum laid down by this Court in the decision referred to above, the objections on the basis of which the applications submitted by the petitioners have been adjourned are not sustainable. Therefore, it wpc No.17058/2010 & conn.cases 4 was up to the authority to have considered and passed appropriate orders on the applications submitted by the petitioners, in accordance with law. Since the applications have not been considered yet, these Writ Petitions can be disposed of directing the first respondent in all the cases to consider and pass appropriate orders on the said applications, without further delay. 6. In the above circumstances, these Writ Petitions are disposed of directing the first respondent in all the cases to consider and dispose of the applications submitted by the petitioners evidenced by Ext.P1 in all the cases in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon, 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, after hearing all interested parties including the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/