IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 29267 of 2011(G) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. P.K.BALAN, PONATH HOUSE,AZHIKODE P.O., KODUNGALLUR BY ADVS. SRI.P.DEEPAK SMT.APARNA RAJAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR,REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR-680 001. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.G.GOPAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VPV WPCNO.29267/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION DATED 17/12/2010 WITH COVERING LETTER. EXT.P2: COPY OF ORDER OF RESPONDENT DATED 8/8/2011 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE VPV P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------------- WP (C) No. 29267 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a stage carriage operator, operating a stage carriage service on the route Azhikode - Kodungallur - Kottapuram - Anapuzha - Pantheerampala - Moonnupeedika on the strength of a regular permit. By Ext.P1 application dated 17.12.2010 he applied for a variation of the permit. The variation sought was curtailment of the sector Anappuzha - Anappuzha Centre, covering a distance of 4 kilometres, the sector Kodungalloor - Pantheerampala, covering a distance of 5 kilometres and extension of service from Kottappuram to Puthanvelikkara, a distance of 4 kilometers. The petitioner has in Ext.P1 application stated that the variation was sought primarily for the reason that a new bridge connecting Kottappuram and Puthanvelikkara has been commissioned thereby reducing the distance between Kodungalloor and Puthenvelikara. The petitioner's application for variation was taken up for consideration by the Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur that met on 8.8.2011. By Ext.P2 proceedings dated WP(C)No. 29267 of 2011 -2- 8.8.2011, the Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur adjourned the application with a direction to the petitioner to modify the application and time schedule avoiding the curtailment from Anappuzha center to Anappuzha and to reduce the number of trips on the portion covered by the scheme. Hence this writ petition, challenging Ext.P2 and seeking a direction to the Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur to pass final orders on Ext.P1 application without insisting on the petitioner modifying the application as directed in Ext.P2. 2. I heard Sri.P.Deepak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.G.Gopakumar, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that there has been no increase in the number of trips on the notified route or portion thereof that the petitioner has only sought curtailment of two sectors and extension of the service through a newly opened bridge and therefore, the Regional Transport Authority erred in adjourning the application and in issuing the impugned directions. Per Contra, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted on instructions that the petitioner's application will be considered again in the next meeting of the Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur in the WP(C)No. 29267 of 2011 -3- event of the petitioner complying with the directions in Ext.P2. 3. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel on both sides. The reason stated by the petitioner for seeking a variation of the permit by curtailing two sectors on the route and extension of the service to another sector was on account of the opening of a new bridge connecting Kottappuram and Puthanvelikkara. This fact has been specifically set out in Ext.P1 application in the form of a representation. The variation sought by the petitioner was to curtail the sector Anappuzha - Anappuzha center covering a distance of 4 kilometres, and the sector Kodungallur - Pantheerampala covering a distance of 5 kilometres and to extend the service from Kottappuram to Puthanvelikkara, covering a distance of 4 kilometers without changing the existing timings. If the petitioner's request is granted he will be operating the service on the route Azheekkode - Kodungallur - Kottappuram - Puthanvelikkara - Moonnupeedika by avoiding the sector from Anappuzha to Anappuzha center and from Kodungallur to Pantheerampala. He will also be operating the service from Kottappuram to Puthanvelikkara. The petitioner has also stated in Ext.P1 that the variation is sought without changing the existing timings and that he will be operating the WP(C)No. 29267 of 2011 -4- service with the set of existing timings. The Regional Transport Authority has in Ext.P2 proceeded on the basis that the variation sought results in increased number of trips on the portion of the route which passes through a notified route and therefore it cannot be granted. The Regional Transport Authority also directed the applicant to modify the application by withdrawing the request for curtailment of the sector Anappuzha - Anappuzha centre. In my opinion, the directions issued by the Regional Transport Authority in Ext.P2 cannot be sustained. If for the reasons stated by the Regional Transport Authority in Ext.P2 order, the petitioner's application for variation cannot be granted and is liable to be rejected, the Regional Transport Authority should taken a decision in that regard instead of directing the petitioner to modify the application as indicated in Ext.P2. Under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 an appeal to the State Transport Appellate Authority lies from an order rejecting an application for variation. The petitioner can canvass the correctness of the decision of the Regional Transport Authority in appeal and in the event of the petitioner succeeding in the appeal, the Regional Transport Authority will be bound to implement the said decision. That right of the petitioner to have the decision of the Regional Transport WP(C)No. 29267 of 2011 -5- Authority challenged has virtually been taken away by the directions in Ext.P2. Even assuming that the number of trips has increased thereby resulting in violation of clause 19 of the notification, while granting the application, appropriate directions regarding the number of trips could have been issued. For that reason also I am of the opinion that the directions issued in Ext.P2 cannot be sustained. I accordingly allow the writ petition set aside Ext.P2 and direct the Regional Transport Authority to pass orders on the petitioner's application which was the subject matter of Ext.P2 order after affording him and the objectors, if any, an opportunity of being heard. Having regard to the fact that more than one year has passed after the petitioner applied for variation of the permit and as a regular permit is valid only till 23.3.2012, I direct that final orders on the petitioner's application for variation shall passed preferably in the next meeting of the Regional Transport Authority and in any event within a period of two months from today. Sd/- P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. Rkc //True Copy// PA to Judge.