IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2008 / 16TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 7457 of 2005(K) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- M.C.MATHEWS, MAMOOTTIL HOUSE, KATTAPPANA. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, IDUKKI REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, IDUKKI. 3. THE K.S.R.T.C. REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.7457/2005 K APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER ON THE ROUTE ADIMALY-KATTAPPANA VALID FROM 24/06/1997 TO 23/06/2002. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 30/12/2002. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN S.L.P.NO.15796/2001 DTD. 24/09/2001. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN O.P.NO.37443/2002 DTD. 11/12/2002. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM AS MVAA.NO. 128/2003 FILED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DTD. 6/02/2003. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE S.T.A.T., ERNAKULAM IN MVAA.NO.128/2003 DTD. 31/08/2004. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.7457/2005 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that, by Ext.P2, renewal of the permit which was initially granted on 24.6.1997 was declined by the RTA on the ground that the route in question overlaps the notified route. The matter was challenged in an appeal before the Tribunal and that resulted in Ext.P6, by which the appeal was also rejected. It is submitted that, presently the petitioner is operating on the strength of successive temporary permits, in view of the pendency of this writ petition. 2. According to him, even during the pendency of the appeal, he had made an application for renewal of the regular permit and that the same has to be considered in the light of the notification dated 6.5.2008. 2 3. If as stated by the petitioner, an application for renewal of permit is pending before the first respondent, it is for the first respondent to consider the same, untrammeled by Exts.P2 and P6. This shall be done, in the light of the notification dated 6.5.2005 and pass orders thereon with notice to the petitioner. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. 3