IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 10084 of 2009(E)
1. P.R.THOMAS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON
For Respondent :SHRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :09/09/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC,J.
---------------------
W.P.(C).No.10084 OF 2009
------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of September, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner submitted Ext.P1 application for a regular
permit on the route Munambam-North Paravoor-
Kakkanad. That was rejected by the RTA on the ground of
overlapping, as per Ext.P3 proceedings. By Ext.P4
judgment, the STAT set aside Ext.P3 order and directed the
RTA to reconsider the matter in the light of the judgment of
this court in Vijayan V. State of Kerala(2008(3) ILR Kerala
476). In so far as the second reason for rejection that the
proposed route connects and passes through two
intermediate points at North Paravur and Mannam in Aluva-
Kuriappilly scheme with exceptional clause, that objection
was overruled by the STAT.
2. The matter was accordingly reconsidered but
however the application was again rejected as per Ext.P5
WP(c).No.10084/09 2
proceedings, on the ground that the route overlaps the
modified settlement scheme published by notification dated
15.9.2008. Further it is also stated that portion of the route
from Edapally to Palarivattom objectionably overlaps the
notified route Ernakulam-Palakkad by 3 Kms. Again Ext.P6
appeal was filed before the Tribunal and by Ext.P7 judgment
the Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned
order. Accordingly, the matter was remitted to the first
respondent for reconsideration. It is aggrieved by the remand
order thus passed the writ petition is filed.
3. Two contentions are raised. One is that in Ext.P7, the
findings of the Tribunal is that the draft notification relied on
in Ext.P5 did not enable the RTA to reject the application.
Contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that
since the matter was already considered and rejected and was
again remitted his eligibility for the grant of permit has to be
reckoned with reference to the position as prevailing as on
the date of the first consideration of his application. In
WP(c).No.10084/09 3
support of this contention, counsel placed reliance on the
Division Bench judgment of this court in Manikandakumar V.
Ramakrishnan (1985 KLT 1026). Another contention raised by
the petitioner is that subsequent promulgation of the scheme
as mentioned in Ext.P5, was not in derogation of the existing
complete exclusion scheme and therefore the matter has to
be decided in that view. In support of this contention counsel
place reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this court in
O.P.No.3790/1974 and connected cases.
4. In my view, though there is considerable force in the
submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, the
matter has to be decided by the primary authority. This
necessarily has to be consistent with the law as laid down by
this court in the judgment relied on by the counsel.
Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition directing that
the first respondent shall reconsider Ext.P1 application for
regular permit made, in the light of Ext.P7 order passed by
the STAT and also in the light of the principles laid down in
WP(c).No.10084/09 4
the judgment referred to above. This shall be done as
expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 8 weeks from
the date of production of a copy of the judgment.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/