IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 5194 of 2008(R)
1. MOHAMMED, S/O.ALASSANKUTTY
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY
3. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER
4. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
For Petitioner :SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :13/02/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C) No. 5194 OF 2008 M
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 13 th February, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner had made an application for a regular permit on the
route Thripanachi-Vellur touching Areacode. That application of
the petitioner was considered and by Ext. P2, the R.T.A. rejected the
same saying that the offered vehicle does not belong to the
applicant. Petitioner carried the matter in appeal which was
allowed by Ext. P3 and it was ordered to grant permit subject to
settlement of timing. When the matter went back to the R,.T.A., it
reconsidered the application and rejected the same saying that a
portion of the route from Athani to Mongam overlaps the notified
route included in the notification dated 9.5.2007. Ext. P5 appeal
was filed against Ext. P4. In the appeal, the K.S.R.T.C., filed Ext. P6
objection confirming that the aforesaid portion of the route applied
for was covered by the notification dated 9.5.2007. Petitioner
submits that when the matter was taken up for hearing before the
Tribunal, he requested that the objectionable part may be excluded
W.P.(C) No. 5194 OF 2008 -2-
and that the permit may be directed to be granted in
implementation of Ext. P3 for the remaining portion of the route.
However, according to him, without taking this aspect into account
the Tribunal rejected the application by Ext. P7, on the ground that
the route applied for includes notified sector also. Reiterating the
aforesaid request, petitioner sought review of Ext. P7 by filing Ext.
P8 and that also is rejected by Ext. P9. It is in the aforesaid
circumstances this writ petition has been filed.
2. Ext. P1 is a sketch of the route applied for and from the
sketch I notice that the objectionable portion of the route is Athani
to Mongam which obviously will call for exclusion of the sector
Mongam to Vellur. Since the petitioner reiterates in the review
petition as also in the writ petition that he had requested the
Tribunal to direct consideration of his application excluding the
aforesaid sector, I feel it is only proper that the RTA reconsiders the
petitioner’s application and implement Ext. P3 order of the STAT,
taking into account the statement made as above.
3. Accordingly, quashing Exts. P4, P7 and P9 I direct that the
1st respondent shall consider the petitioner’s application mentioned
in Exts. P2 and P3, excluding the sector Mongam to Vellur. A
W.P.(C) No. 5194 OF 2008 -3-
decision on the application shall be taken as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate within four weeks of production of a copy of
this judgment.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
jan/-
S