IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2010 / 25TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16334 of 2010(N) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- C.K.SUNIL, S/O.DAMODARAN, ANITHA BHAVAN, P.O.CHELARI, KANNADIPARAMBA, THALIPARAMBA. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KANNUR,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KANNUR. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO:16334 OF 2010 N ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th June, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is an existing operator on the route Kannur- Kozhikode-Kasaragod. He is conducting his service as a limited stop ordinary service (LSOS). The petitioner has submitted an application for the renewal of his permit, which is still pending before the Regional Transport Authority. As per Ext.P1 proceedings, the first respondent has rejected the request of the petitioner to convert his service into a super fast service. The only reason stated in Ext.P1 is that the permit that was initially issued as an LSOS cannot be permitted to be converted into that of a super fast passenger service for the reason that there would be change in the fare structure causing inconvenience to the travelling public. In view of the amendment to the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, it is not possible for the petitioner to continue his services as an LSOS. It is for the said reason that he had submitted an application for the conversion of his service into a super fast service. The above aspect has not been taken note of by the first respondent while issuing Ext.P1 proceedings. Therefore, Ext.P1 is set aside. The first respondent shall consider the request of the petitioner in WPC 16334/2010 2 accordance with law and shall pass appropriate orders on his request for conversion of his service into a super fast one, 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. 2. Though the petitioner has submitted an application for the renewal of his permit which has expired in the meantime, his complaint is that no orders have been passed thereon till date. By Ext.P5, consideration of his application has been deferred indefinitely. In view of the above, there will be a further direction to the first respondent to consider the application for renewal submitted by the petitioner 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. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 16334/2010 3