IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 6441 of 2011(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BASKARAN, S/O.KRISHNAN,KILIVAYIL HOUSE, P.O.IRINGALLUR,VENGARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY VADAKARA REPRESETNED BY ITS SECRETARY, 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, VADAKARA,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 6441 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a stage carriage operator operating a stage carriage on the route Thalassery-Guruvayoor as a limited stop ordinary service. Before the permit expired, the petitioner filed an application for renewal of the permit. The Regional Transport Authority that met on 25.5.2009 adjourned the application for renewal of the permit till 15.8.2009 or to await till the finalisation of the draft scheme under section 100(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Later the petitioner applied for conversion of the service as super fast service by submitting Ext.P2 petition dated 22.7.2010. The Regional Transport Authority that met on 3.12.2010 considered the said application along with the application for regular permit and passed Ext.P3 order directing the petitioner to apply for curtailment of the route or to move the Government seeking exemption from the rules. The application was indefinitely adjourned. The Regional Transport Authority also held that as the route is a long route covering a distance of 180 kilometers, the petitioner cannot operate the stage carriage as limited stop ordinary service. It was also noticed that the Kerala W.P.(C) No.6441 of 2011 2 State Road Transport Corporation has opposed to the grant of renewal on the ground that the service overlaps the notified route and the conversion of service to a higher class will affect the Corporation. The Regional Transport Authority also took note of the objections raised by the travelling public, especially the students who objected to the conversion of the stage carriage to higher class of service. 2. A reading of Ext.P3 indicates that the Regional Transport Authority has virtually declined to renew the permit and to change the class of service on the ground that the petitioner cannot operate a limited stop ordinary service on the route. The Regional Transport Authority has therefore directed the petitioner either to seek curtailment of the route or to move the Government seeking exemption from the rules governing the class of service. In such circumstances, the remedy of the petitioner, if he is aggrieved thereby, is to challenge the said order in revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal under section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act. I, therefore, find no grounds to grant the reliefs prayed for. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed leaving open the contentions of the petitioner and reserving liberty with him to W.P.(C) No.6441 of 2011 3 challenge Ext.P3 order in revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.