IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2009 / 21ST ASWINA 1931 WA.No. 2208 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN RP.868/2009 dt.14.9.2009 IN W.P.(C) NO.23495/2007 DT.19.6.2009 .................... APPELLANT/REVIEW PETITIONER: -------------- PAVANAN, PERAYANGATTIL HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMMURI P.O., PERINGOTTUKARA. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.FAYAZ RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR, REP.BY SECRETARY. 2. SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR. 3. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. 4. SAJEEVAN.N.K., KODAPPULLY HOUSE, P.O.CHAZHOOR, THRISSUR. 5. A.F.DAVIS, AKKARA HOUSE, VENGINISSERY, PARALAM, THRISSUR. GOVT.PLEADER, SMT.R.BINDU FOR R1 TO R3 SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR FOR R4. SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR) FOR R5 SRI.P.DEEPAK. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. -------------------------------- W.A. No.2208 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this, the 13th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant was not a party to the Writ Petition. But, he filed R.P.No. 868/2009 against the judgment of the learned Single Judge after obtaining leave. The said Review Petition was dismissed by order dated 14.9.2009. This Writ Appeal is filed, challenging the said order. 2. The brief facts of the case are the following: The 5th respondent herein, who was the writ petitioner, is operating a stage carriage on the route Ayyanthole - Thrissur - Thriprayar on the strength of a regular permit granted in the year 2005. The 4th respondent was having a regular permit on the route Perinjanam - Adat via Chalingad, Kuttamangalam, Painoor, Thriprayar, Peringottukara, Kundolikadavu, Thrissur and Muthuvara. He applied for variation of that permit with revised timings and trips. The W.A. No.2208/2009 - 2 - said application was rejected on the finding that the curtailment of trips will adversely affect the travelling public. The 4th respondent challenged that order in M.V.A.A.No.715/2005 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam. The Tribunal by Ext.P5 judgment remanded the matter to the R.T.A. for fresh consideration, taking note of the submission made by the operator that he was willing to operate on the varied route without curtailing the existing trips. Pursuant to the said remand order, the R.T.A. considered the application of the 4th respondent and allowed the same by Ext.P6 order. The said order was challenged by the 5th respondent herein before this Court. He pointed out that though the S.T.A.T. directed the R.T.A to consider the application for variation without reduction in trips. The prayer was allowed, as per the Original Application, that is, the variation was granted curtailing existing trips. The learned Single Judge found that the said submission is correct and therefore, set aside Ext.P6 and remitted the application for fresh disposal in the light of Ext.P5 judgment. The said judgment in the Writ Petition is produced as Annexure-II in this Writ Appeal. It was rendered W.A. No.2208/2009 - 3 - on 19.6.2009. Now, the appellant herein has come forward with a case that the 4th respondent was no longer interested in the permit and the appellant got the permit transferred in his favour as per the decision of the R.T.A. dated 14.6.2006, which was signed for communication on 19.12.2006. The transfer was endorsed in the permit on 10.5.2007. The Writ Petition was filed on 31.7.2007 and was admitted on 1.8.2007. That means, though the 4th respondent was no longer the permit holder, he was keenly contesting the matter. When he has failed, now, the transferee of the permit has come forward and filed the Review Petition and thereafter, this Writ Appeal. 3. The contention raised is that a rival operator like the 5th respondent has no locus standi to maintain the Writ Petition. Therefore, the Writ Petition was liable to be dismissed, as not maintainable. We think it is an arguable point. But, having regard to the facts of the case, we are not inclined to entertain the said technical contention. When the S.T.A.T. has directed the R.T.A. to take a decision without curtailing the existing trips, the R.T.A. has chosen to decide W.A. No.2208/2009 - 4 - otherwise and this Court has interfered with the same. So, if we further interfere with the matter in this appeal, the same will result in restoration of a patently illegal order. We further notice that the learned Single Judge has given liberty to the appellant herein to pursue the matter for variation of the permit. In view of the above position, we find no reason to interfere with the order in the Review Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE) ps