The petitioner is aggrieved with Exhibit P6 judgment of the Tribunal, which remanded the issue for fresh consideration. The issue raised in the appeal was agitated earlier in an appeal, which was also remanded, by Exhibit P2 judgment.
2. The petitioner had applied for a regular permit in the route Kaipuzhamuttu - Ernakulam Kaloor Bus stand, which was the bone of contention in the proceedings before the Tribunal as also in the writ petition.
3. Initially the grant of permit was declined as per Exhibit P1 relying on a draft notification dated 09.05.2007. The Tribunal, on appeal, by Exhibit P2 remanded the matter relying on a decision of this Court, which declared that rejection on the ground of overlapping cannot be made on the basis of a draft notification. On remand, again Exhibit P3 order was passed rejecting the application, referring to a notification of 2008. Though Exhibit P3 would indicate that the same was a final notification, in appeal the WP(C).No.17152 of 2009 - 2 -
Tribunal found that the same was also a draft notification and, hence, the principle on which the earlier remand was made applied squarely to the present appeal too. Again a remand was made as per Exhibit P6, which is challenged herein.
4. The learned counsel for the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation [for brevity “KSRTC”] would contend that now a finalised scheme has come into operation with effect from 14.07.2009.
5. The remand order would have to be complied with after noticing the existing legal position and if the present notification is one which has brought in finalised scheme routes, then necessarily the grant of permit has to be considered on the basis of the specific conditions in the said notification. On production of a certified copy of this judgment, the authority shall, after hearing the petitioner as also the KSRTC, dispose of the application within a period of two months. Since the Tribunal has specifically indicated that the overlap portion is not specified as one of the grounds to interfere with the rejection order, necessarily, when considering the issue afresh and if rejection is made on the WP(C).No.17152 of 2009 - 3 -
ground of overlap, the Regional Transport Authority would do well to indicate the portion of overlap, in the order itself.
Writ petition is disposed of as above. Parties are left to suffer their respective costs.
vku.
Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran, Judge ( true copy )