IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2008 / 7TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 22905 of 2008(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ P.M.KARUNAKARA KURUP, PATIYIL, ANJALI BHAVAN, BUDHANOOR P.O., CHENGANNOOR, BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1.THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRASPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) 22905 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: JULY 29, 2008 JUDGMENT Exts.P1 and P3 are under challenge in this writ petition. 2. By Ext.P1, an application filed for regular permit was rejected on the ground that the proposed route overlaps the notified route at a distance of 3.4 kms. Against Ext.P1, petitioner filed Ext.P2 appeal before the Tribunal and that was rejected by Ext.P3. It is challenging Exts.P1 and P3, petitioner has approached this Court. 3. A reading of Ext.P3 judgment shows that the only contention urged before the Tribunal was that the rejection of his application for regular permit on the ground of overlapping is incorrect. This has been appreciated by the Tribunal and Ext.P3 judgment has been rendered rejecting the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner, making reference to Ext.P4 scheme, contends that private WP(C) 22905/08 2 operators can operate along with the State transport undertaking. It is also stated that in view of Ext.P6 judgment, overlapping, if any, was only an inevitable overlapping and therefore it should be treated as intersection. 4. A reading of Ext.P3 judgment shows that none of these points were raised before the Tribunal and all that has been raised is that there is no objectionable overlapping. This has been appreciated and rejected by the Tribunal and on the material produced, there is nothing to conclude that this finding is erroneous. I see no justification to entertain this writ petition. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE mt/-