IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2008 / 5TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 17149 of 2008(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- RAJITHA, W/O.ANILKUMAR, NAMBIVEETTIL HOUSE, P.O.KURUVATTOOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C., KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C. FOR R3 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.17149/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE STAT ERNAKULAM IN MVAA NO.464/2005 DT 19.10.2005. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT 25.4.2007. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM AS MVAA NO.422/2007 DT 15.7.2007. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE STAT, ERNAKULAM IN MVAA NO.422/2007 DT 31.1.2008. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 17149 OF 2008 N ==================== Dated this the 27th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is operating on the route Kozhikode-Payambra having route length of 15.4 kms. According to the petitioner, he made an application for variation by extension by 3.5 kms to a place called Karanthoor. That was considered by the RTA and rejected by order dated 8.4.2005. The petitioner filed an appeal to the STAT and by Ext.P1 judgment, the matter was directed to be reconsidered by the RTA. It is accordingly that the matter was considered by the RTA. 2. However, by Ext.P2 proceedings of 25/4/2007, the RTA rejected the application on the ground that in terms of the notification dated 9/5/2006, the operators will be permitted to operate on portion of the notified route not exceeding 10 km or 10% of the length of the route applied for, whichever is less. According to the RTA, the route applied for was having length of only 3.5 kms and the objectionable overlapping extended to 0.7 kms and therefore it was beyond the permissible limits as provided in the notification dated 9/5/2006. This finding of the RTA was confirmed by the STAT by rejecting Ext.P3 appeal as per Ext.P4 judgment. WPC 17149/08 :2 : It is in this background writ petition is filed challenging Exts. P2 and P4. 3. It is true that in terms of the notification dated 9/5/2006, private operators could be permitted to operate on portions of the notified route not exceeding 10 km or 10% of the length of the route applied for. In this case, the route length of the petitioner as per the permit granted to him was 15.4 kms and the variation sought was for extension by 3.5 kms. In my view when the 10% is calculated, the route length of the entire route is what is relevant to be taken into account and not the length of the portion of which variation is sought for. 4. Calculated on this basis, viz., by taking the total route length, it can be seen that the request of the petitioner did not exceed 10% provided for in the notification. On this basis, I must hold that the rejection of the application by Exts.P2, which is confirmed by Ext.P4 are erroneous and Exts. P2 and P4 are quashed. 5. The matter stands remanded to the RTA, who shall pass orders on the application for variation submitted by the petitioner. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp