AJITH KUMAR Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a stage carriage operator operating a stage carriage on the route Chottanikkara - Guruvayur via. Tripunithura, Ernakulam, Edappally, Pathalam, Koonammavu, Parur, Kodungallur, Triprayar and Chithara on the strength of Ext.P1 regular permit. He applied for variation of the route so as to facilitate service along the Varappuzha bridge by submitting an application before the Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur, the primary authority. THE Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur that met on 10.1.2011 resolved to seek the concurrence of the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam, as can be seen from Ext.P2 proceedings dated 10.1.2011. THE grievance voiced by the petitioner is that though thereafter the Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur wrote to the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam seeking concurrence, till date the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam has not taken a decision on the request for concurrence. THE petitioner submits that in identical circumstances, as can be seen from Ext.P4 judgment and Ext.P5 order, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal has granted such variation even in cases where the variation sought was rejected by the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam. In this writ petition the petitioner seeks a direction to the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam to consider the request made by the Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur for concurrence in the matter of the application for variation of the route submitted by the petitioner and communicate its decision to the Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur expeditiously.

(2.) I heard Sri.M.A.Fayaz, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Basant Balaji, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. Shorn of details, the only grievance projected by the petitioner is that in view of the delay on the part of the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam in considering the request for concurrence made by the Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur in the matter of the petitioner's application for variation of the route, he is put to serious prejudice. The pleadings disclose that the concurrence of the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam was sought in January, 2011. More than two months have passed thereafter. Further, variation was granted in similar circumstances as can be seen from Ext.P4 judgment passed on an appeal filed by an operator who was operating a stage carriage on the route Ernakulam- Kozhikode. In such circumstances I dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam to consider the request made by the Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur, pursuant to Ext.P1 proceedings for grant of concurrence so as to enable the Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur to process the petitioner's application for variation of the route, expeditiously and in any event within two months from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before the second respondent.