IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2010 / 13TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 18292 of 2010(J) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ RAVINDRANATHAN.C., CHUNATHIL HOUSE, TRIKKADERI.P.O., OTTAPALAM. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.M. MANOJ THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.18292 of 2010 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a stage carriage operator conducting services on the route Cherplassery-Vaniyamkulm on the strength of a regular permit with stage carriage vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-11/N 8120. The permit of the petitioner is valid till 22.5.2013. The petitioner has preferred an application for variation of the conditions of the regular permit under Section 80 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the 'Act' for short). Though his application for variation was considered by the first respondent on 27.5.2010, the same has been adjourned indefinitely. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions for an early disposal of his application. 2. The learned Government Pleader points out that the application of the petitioner was adjourned for obtaining a report from the Secretary regarding the details of the trips proposed by the petitioner as well as the effect of such variation on the convenience of the travelling public. The report of the Secretary is awaited and that is the reason why no orders have been wpc No.18292/2010 2 passed on the petitioner's application, it is submitted. 3. In view of the fact that a report has been called for from the second respondent, it cannot be said that the application of the petitioner has been postponed indefinitely. However, it is absolutely necessary that the report is obtained and the application considered and disposed of without undue delay. 4. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to submit the report called for by the first respondent expeditiously and further directing the first respondent to consider the same and to pass appropriate orders on the application for variation submitted by the petitioner, 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/