IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 4TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 13TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 5190 of 2008(P) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P.R.PARAMESWARAN, PANNIYATH HOUSE, THANGALUR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR. 4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.V. MANOJ KUMAR FOR R1 TO R3, ADV. SHRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC FOR R4. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/09/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.5190/2008-P: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN MVAA.NO.786/2007 DTD. 11/01/2008. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C). NO. 12200/2007 DTD. 28/06/2007. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM IN MVAA.NO.786/2007 DTD. 24/11/2007. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 18/08/2007. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT ISSUED ON THE ROUTE THRISSUR-MUNDUR DTD. 12/02/2008. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DTD. 12/02/2008 ISSUING EXT.P.5 PERMIT. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C). NO. 5061/2008 DTD. 12/02/2008. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 5190 OF 2008 P = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4th day of September 2008 J U D G M E N T Exts. P1and P4 are under challenge. By Ext. P4 the RTA rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground of objectionable overlapping. That was confirmed by the STAT in M.V.A.A. No. 786/07 as per Ext. P1 judgment. Now counsel for the petitioner submits that he intends to make a modified proposal in terms of notification dated 6.5.2008 to the RTA and therefore requests that he be given an opportunity to have the matter reconsidered. 2. If as stated by the petitioner, what he wants to make is a modified proposal in respect of the objectionable overlapping I see no reason to decline that limited relief. In order to enable the petitioner to have the matter reconsidered as above, I set aside Exts. P1 and P4 and direct that if a modified proposal is made by the petitioner within one month from today, the 2nd respondent shall W.P.(C) No. 5190 OF 2008 -2- take up, consider the same and pass appropriate orders within 8 weeks thereafter. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-