IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2011 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1932 WA.No. 301 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.2670/2011 Dated 16/02/2011 .................... APPELLANT(S): THIRD PARTIES -------------------------------------------- 1. KOSHY THANKACHAN, POOSARI BUNGLOW, NELSON MOTORS KAYAMKULAM. 2. ABDUL AZEEZ, ELAVUKKATTYYATH HOUSE, A.K.KULANGARA.P.O., NOORANAD. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.FAYAZ RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENT IN WPC ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. AJOY.L.S, LAKSHMIVILASOM, THIRUVONAM, KIZHAKKENADA, CHENGANNUR. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ALAPPUZHA,CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA. R1 BY ADV.SRI.STALIN PETER DAVIS R2 BY SENIOR GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVASIS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J. CHELAMESWAR, C.J & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No. 301 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Aggrieved by judgment dated 16th February, 2011 in W.P(C). No.2670 of 2011, the instant Writ Appeal is filed by a person who is not a party to this proceedings with leave of this Court granted on 1.3.2011. 2. The first respondent herein applied for grant of a stage carriage permit on the route Chengannur-Bharanickavu before the Regional Transport Authority, Alappuzha. By proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority, Alappuzha dated 7.6.2010 (Exhibit P1), the application was allowed with a direction to the Secretary to the Regional Transport Authority to issue permit subject to the settlement of timings of the service. It appears that a conference for settling the timings was called initially on 7.9.2010, which was adjourned from time to time and the last conference was held on 14.1.2011. Complaining that in spite of the abovementioned process, the first respondent did not receive a permit, the first respondent approached this Court by way of abovementioned Writ Petition with the prayer as follows: “i) issue a writ of mandamus or order directing the respondent to issue the permit by implementing Exhibit P1 on the route Chengannur - Bharanikavu in respect of vehicle KL-02/P 7088, to the petitioner urgently. WA.301/11 2 ii) pass such others deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.” 3. By judgment under appeal the learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the Writ Petition, directing the second respondent to issue a permit to the petitioner in implementation of Exhibit P1 proceedings referred to earlier on the timings settled by the second respondent in the conference dated 14.1.2011. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows: “I accordingly dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent to issue a permit to the petitioner in implementation of Exhibit P1 proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority, Alappuzha with the set of timings settled by him on 14.1.2011. The permit shall be issued to the petitioner within one week from the date on which the petitioner produces a copy of this judgment before the respondent.” 4. Aggrieved by the same, the instant Writ Appeal is filed. The basic submission of the learned counsel for appellants is that the conclusion recorded by the learned Judge that some timings was settled by the second respondent in the meeting dated 14.1.2011 is contrary to the facts situation. In support of the said submission, the appellants rely upon Annexure V(a), a proceedings issued by the Public Information Officer, R.T.O. Office,Alappery dated 4th February, 2011. Relevant portion of the said proceedings reads as follows: WA.301/11 3 “Sub:- Right to Information Act, 2005. Reg:- Issuance of reply to the query Ref:- Your application dated 20.1.2011. The reply to the question submitted by you is as follows:- This is inform you that the timings in respect of stage carriage KL02-P-7088 is not settled so far.” 5. It appears from the judgment under appeal that the relevant records of the second respondent were summoned by this Court and on an examination of the records,. the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the timings was settled by the second respondent on 14.1.2011 in which case we do not understand how the information contained in Annexure V(a) came to be supplied to the appellants. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the appellants herein need to approach the learned Judge seeking a review of the judgment under appeal as the abovementioned certificate, Annexure V (a) is inconsistent to the findings recorded by this Court. The Writ Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. J.CHELAMESWAR, CHIEF JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE vgs