IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2010 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 1607 of 2010(A) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. N.SANTHOSH, KEERIPOYIL HOUSE, P.O.ALLI, THOTTAKKAD, MUKKOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. MOYINKUTTY P.K., PARAKKATTIL HOUSE, P.O.CHERUVADY, MUKKOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. JITHESH K.P., KOORAPOYIL HOUSE, P.O.ALLI, THEKKUMKUTTY, MUKKOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE. 3. BEERANKUTTY, S/O. MUHAMMED, URALIKUTH, PALOOR, ALLI P.O., KOZHIKODE. BY GP K S MUHAMED HASHIM ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX(WP(C)1607/2010) PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVED TIME AND TRIP SCHEDULE OF THIRD RESPONDENT'S SERVICE. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE MVI, KODUVALLY DTD. 12.6.2009. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF R1 DTD. 2.3.2009. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 11.8.2009 ADDRESSED TO THE CHAIRMAN, RTA. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF R1. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN RP.932 OF 2009 IN WPC 21076/09 DTD. 30.9.2009. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN WPC 33738 OF 2009 DTD. 18.12.2009. LGK K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.1607 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P3 proceedings of the first respondent on the ground that the same is a non-speaking order. As per Ext.P3, a variation has been granted to the third respondent, which involves curtailment of the existing trips. According to the petitioners, the variation would adversely affect the travelling public. The petitioners rely on the decision reported in Prasad V. RTA, Ernakulam(2005(2) KLT 227). As per the above decision, it has been held that the RTA has to give reasons even while sanctioning an application for variation. 2. The counsel for the third respondent has filed a counter affidavit, disputing the contentions of the petitioners. They have also seriously challenged the locus standi of the petitioners to maintain the writ petition. However, in view of the fact that Ext.P3 is a non- speaking order, which is liable to be set aside in view of the decision of this court referred to above, I do not propose to go into the rival Wpc 1607/2010 2 contentions of the parties. 3. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is allowed. Ext.P3 is set aside and the entire matter is remanded to the first respondent. The first respondent shall consider the matter afresh and pass orders on the request for variation submitted by the third respondent after considering the objections raised against such variation including the objections of other passengers also. The orders in the matter shall be passed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk