IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 3489 of 2007(M) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- ROY ZACHARIAH, MAMMOOTTIL, COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.INEES. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.R. SABU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/02/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.3489/2007-M: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE R.T.A., KOTTAYAM DTD. 30/05/06 IN ITEM NO.91. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF M.V.A.A. NO. 404/2006 FILED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 08/08/06 AGAINST EXHIBIT.P.1. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE TIMINGS OF STAGE CARRIAGE KL-5/K-2881 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, RTA, KOTTAYAM ON 26/03/2004. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE TIMINGS OF THE PETITIONER'S STAGE CARRIAGE KL-10/F-9243 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, R.T.A. KOTTAYAM ON 22/03/2005. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE STAGE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN M.V.A.A. NO. 404/06 DTD. 26/10/2006. EXT.P.6: ROUGH SKETCH OF THE ROUTE KOTTAYAM - MALLAPPALLY SHOWING THE PROPOSED CURTAILMENT AND EXTENSION. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 3489 OF 2007 M = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25th February, 2008 J U D G M E N T Curtailment applied for by the petitioner was rejected by the RTA by Ext. P1 order where it is stated that the proposed curtailment will affect the interest of the travelling public in the existing route. Appeal was filed against Ext. P1 order and that was also rejected by Ext. P5 judgment of the STAT. It is in this background the writ petition has been filed. 2. Ext. P5 shows that the M.V.I's report has been brushed aside by the Tribunal on the ground that it did not show that the variation claimed will enhance the convenience of the travelling public. The Tribunal has also ignored the findings in the report that there are services with identical timing on the curtailed sector. 3. In my view there was absolutely no justification for the Tribunal to depart from the report of the M.V.I. which was available on the R.T.A's file. Similarly baseless is the reasoning of the R.T.A. W.P.(C) No. 3489 OF 2007 -2- as contained in Ext. P1 that the interest of the travelling public in the route will be adversely affected. All these conclusions have been arrived at, without any material suggesting the same. 4. For these reasons, I quash Exts. P1 and P5 and the matter shall be re-considered by the 1st respondent with notice to the petitioner. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-