N.K. Sodhi, C.J.

These three Writ Petitions have been put up for hearing before us on a reference made by a learned Single Judge. Since common questions of law and fact arise in these cases, they can be conveniently disposed of together. For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from W.P. (C) No.5929 of 2004.

2. Petitioners are stage carriage operators carrying on their business of running stage carriages on different routes on the strength of permits granted to them by the Regional Transport Authority, Alappuzha. Petitioner No.1 applied for a regular stage carriage permit on Cherthala-Aroor temple route and made an application to the Regional Transport Authority, Alappuzha. The Regional Transport Authority considered the application in its meeting held on 9th October, 2003 and as per item No. 15 of its agenda, the application of the first petitioner was taken up for consideration and the same was granted subject to settlement of timings. Similarly, petitioner No.2 applied for a regular stage carriage permit on Chalipally-Chellanam route to the same Authority. His application was taken up for consideration by the Regional Transport Authority on 27th February, 2003 and the same was rejected. A communication was sent to this petitioner on 3rd April, 2003. Feeling aggrieved by the rejection of his application, he filed an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam and the same was allowed by order dated 20th November, 2003 and the Regional Transport Authority was directed to grant a regular permit to the second petitioner on Chalipally-Chellanam route. Even though both the petitioners had been granted regular stage carriage permits by the concerned authorities, the same were not being released by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Alappuzha. A communication dated 12th February, 2004 was addressed to the first petitioner informing him that the process of route formulation was going on and that the Regional Transport Authority at its meeting held on 9th October, 2003 had already considered the proposals for route formulation and decided to formulate 32 new inter-district routes and the matter was now pending with the State Government. As regards the inter-district routes, the first petitioner was informed that the route formulation in regard to those routes was being undertaken by the State Transport Authority for the State. The Secretary also referred to an order passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No.21433 of 2003, dated 7th July, 2003 wherein a direction had been issued to complete the route formulation within a stipulated period before sanctioning the regular stage carriage permits. Reference was also made to a similar order passed in W.P. (C) No.27224 of 2003 dated 26th August, 2003. The first petitioner was further informed that till the route formulations were completed, the permit granted to him could not be issued. A communication dated 15th January, 2004 had been addressed to the second petitioner informing him that the permit would be issued only after obtaining a clarification from the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. It is against these communications that the present Writ Petition has been filed by the two petitioners.

3. When the matter came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge, the orders passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No.27224 of 2003 were produced before him to contend that permits could not be granted till the completion of the route formulation. A learned Single Judge disposed of W.P. (C) No.27224 of 2003 directing the Transport Authorities to complete the route formulation within a fixed time frame and directed that in the meantime, temporary permits be issued till the route formulation was completed. It appears that the learned Single Judge before whom this Writ Petition came up for hearing did not agree with the observations made in the order dated 26th August, 2003 passed in W.P. (C) No.27224 of 2003 and after referring to the Division Be