High Court of KeralaWP(C)/35811/2015disposed of

Muhammed Ismail v. The Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur

2015-12-094 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937 WP(C).No. 35811 of 2015 (B) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

-------------------------- MUHAMMED ISMAIL S/O HYDROSE, PONNAMPADIKKAL HOUSE, SREENARAYANAPURAM P.O. SANTHIPURAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT(S):

----------------------------

1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY- 680 001

2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-682 030 R BY ADV.K.A.SANJEETHA, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 35811 of 2015 (B) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE R.T.A. THRISSUR RESOLVING TO SEEK CONCURRENCE EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- nil TRUE COPY SKS P.A TO JUDGE

K.HARILAL, J.

-------------------------------------- W.P(C)NO. 35811 OF 2015 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of December, 2015

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the basic permit holder on the route Ernakulam-Guruvayur, which is valid up to 6.8.2011 and he has filed an application for concurrence of the said permit, which is under process. Ext.P1 is the decision of the Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur resolving to seek concurrence and consequentially the matter was placed before the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam on 4.4.2012 and concurrence was granted. But there was a mistake in the permit mentioned in the renewal concurrence wherein the route is mentioned as PathalamMuttar-FACT-Ernakulam. In fact the right way is via Paravoor, Cherai, Njarakkal and Vypin. Aggrieved by the said mistake, the petitioner had filed Ext.P2 before the first respondent; but the same has not been considered so far. This is the grievance highlighted in this writ petition.

Having regard to the long pendency of the matter, the first respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

K.HARILAL, JUDGE sks