IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2008 / 25TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 14323 of 2008(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ THE MANAGING PARTNER, MAYILVAHANAM MOTORS, SHORNUR, PALAKKAD, C.A.ABRAHAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON SRI.M.JITHESH MENON RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. 3. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J -------------------------------------------------------------- WP(C).NO.14323/2008 ------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Exts.P3 and P5 are under challenge. The variation sought for by the petitioner has been rejected by Ext.P3 order of the RTA. It is held that the Filed Officer has reported that the extension will adversely affect the direct passengers from Mangalam Dam-Kozhikode. It is further held that no new circumstances as required under Rule 145 (6)(i)(ii)of the Rules have been made out. This was called in question before the Tribunal in Ext.P4 appeal and that was also rejected by Ext.P5. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Tribunal in Ext.P5 has found that the advantage will outweigh the inconvenience likely to be caused to the direct passengers. This was obviously a mistake occurred and 2 what the Tribunal intended is just the opposite. The Tribunal has in all respects concurred with the RTA's finding in Ext.P3. In view of the concurrent findings arrived at by both the RTA and STAT and in the absence of anything to conclude that the same is perverse, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. 3