IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2008 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1930 W.P(C).No. 13408 of 2008(U) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- PADMAJA M.S,D/O.RAJAN NAIR,12/346, PULAROTHIL HOUSE,MANNARKKAD,PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY,THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,PALAKKAD. 3. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PALAKKAD. 4. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SMT. K.R. DEEPA ADV. SRI. JOHNSON P. JOHN, SC, KSRTC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 13408 OF 2008 - U = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 16th June 2008 J U D G M E N T Ext. P2 proceedings of the RTA as confirmed by Ext. P5 is under challenge. Ext. P2 shows that the petitioner had applied for variation of permit and the RTA, while considering the matter with notice to the petitioner, held that it will adversely affect the travelling public especially in the interior area. Yet another reason stated is one of scheme violation. This has been affirmed by STAT in Ext. P5. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the finding on the scheme violation in both the orders is incorrect, the factual finding that the variation, if granted will adversely affect the travelling public, cannot be upset and there is absolutely no material to conclude that the finding of the RTA as confirmed by the STAT in so far as this aspect of the matter is concerned is perverse. The writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-