High Court Kerala High Court

V.P.Sukumari vs The Regional Transport Authority on 6 December, 2007

Kerala High Court
V.P.Sukumari vs The Regional Transport Authority on 6 December, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 30340 of 2007(J)


1. V.P.SUKUMARI,VALIYAPARAMBIL,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. MARIMMA THOMAS, KUMBALAMTHANATHU HOUSE,

                        Vs



1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SECRETARY ,REGIONAL TRANSPORT

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.DEEPAK

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :06/12/2007

 O R D E R
                         ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

                = =W.P.(C) = = = = = = = = = = =
                     = = =
                             No. 30340 OF 2007 J
                = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

                Dated this the 6th December, 2007

                            J U D G M E N T

Exts. P1 and P1(a) are the proceedings of the 1st respondent

considering an application made by the petitioner for regular permit

in respect of a route covering seven districts. The matter was

adjourned and as is evident from Ext. P1(a), the RTA has decided to

obtain details of the distance covered in each district and details of

overlapping. Thereafter the matter has not been considered. At

that stage this writ petition has been filed praying for a direction to

the 1st respondent to consider the application of the petitioner for

regular permit without awaiting for concurrence of RTAs. and to

grant the same subject to obtaining countersignature.

2. In my view this prayer of the writ petitioner is premature.

The RTA has not considered the application, nor has it decided to

grant the permit. All that the RTA has done is to call for the details

of the distance covered in each district and details of overlapping.

WPC No. 30340/07 -2-

Before the application is considered, according to the RTA it needed

those particulars. At this stage, it will be too premature to direct

the RTA to issue the permit subject to countersignature.

3. Therefore, having regard to the facts as stated above, I

dispose of this writ petition directing that the 1st respondent shall

expedite obtaining the details called for in Ext. P1(a) proceedings

dated 12-4-2007 and thereafter consider the application on merits.

It will be open to the 1st respondent to consider whether permit can

be granted to the petitioner subject to countersignature and without

awaiting the concurrence of the authorities.

ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
jan/-