IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2009 / 1ST ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 9882 of 2008(B) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ M.O.BABY, MALEKUDY HOUSE, IRINGOLE, PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADV. MR.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MUVATTUPUZHA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. THE K.S.R.T.C.REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P.NARAYANAN R3 BY ADV. MR.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.9882/2008 B APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT ISSUED IN RESPECT OF STAGE CARRIAGE KL-17/4000 VALID UPTO 18/11/2009. P2: COPY OF THE 4 MONTHS TEMPORARY PERMIT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER ON 20/11/2007 WHICH IS VALID UPTO 19/03/2008. P3: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DTD. 22/01/2008. P4: COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM AS MVAA.NO.125/2008 FILED BEFORE THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DTD. 3/3/2008. P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE S.T.A.T. IN MVAA.NO.125/2008 DTD. 6/03/2008. P6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN MVAA.NO.510/2008 DTD. 24/01/2009. P7: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN ITEM NO.27 OF THE MEETING DTD. 2/03/2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 9882 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 22nd June,2009 J U D G M E N T On a vacancy in the route Elambakappilly-Aluva- Perumbavoor-Kothamangalam having arisen, petitioner,who is operating a stage carriage, applied for regular permit which was rejected as per Exhibit-P3 order of the 1st respondent. Exhibit-P4 appeal was filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Tribunal which was also rejected as per Exhibit-P5 judgment on the ground that there was objectionable overlapping of an extent of 700 meters. Exhibit-P5 has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. 2. Petitioner refers to a subsequent judgment of the Apellate Tribunal in relation to the same route where intersection at Permbavoor which is an intermediate point in the route was found to be a non-objectionable intersection. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the operator was allowed as per Exhibit-P6 judgment inter alia finding 2 that such overlapping was inevitable while operating on the route in question to have access to Perumbavoor town. Exhibit-P5 judgment was later implemented by the RTA as evidenced by Exhibit-P7. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that since the Tribunal itself has taken a different view, in relation to the same route, it is only appropriate that the Tribunal is directed to reconsider Exhibit-P4 appeal. I find force in the submission. 4. Heard learned counsel for the respondents also. In the result, Exhibits P4 requires reconsideration at the hands of the Tribunal. Accordingly Exhibit-P5 is quashed. STAT is directed to reconsider Exhibit-P4 appeal in the light of Exhibits P6 and P7 and pass fresh orders after giving notice to the KSRTC also within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma 3 4 (V.GIRI,JUDGE) 5 ma 6