PRAMODKUMAR N Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has submitted Ext.P1 application for grant of regular permit for operating stage carriage service on the route, Ernakulam High Court Junction - Manjapra. THE said application was rejected as per Ext.P2. Feeling aggrieved by the same the petitioner has preferred an appeal as MVAA No. 117/2010 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. THE said appeal was allowed as per Ext.P4 and the impugned order was set aside. THE first respondent therein/the first respondent herein was directed to grant fresh regular permit to the appellant as applied for, subject to settlement of timings. It is aggrieved by the delay in the matter of complying with the directions in Ext.P4 judgment that this writ petition has been filed.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader. Evidently, the impugned order under Ext.P2 was set aside by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal as per Ext.P4. After setting aside the impugned order a further direction was issued to grant regular permit to the appellant as applied for subject to settlement of timings. Therefore, in the light of Ext.P4 the first respondent is bound to consider Ext.P1 application and to grant the same subject to settlement of timings. This shall be done expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with notice to the petitioner and also other operators on the route.