IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2009 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 23495 of 2007(Y) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- A.F.DAVIS, AKKARA HOUSE, VENGINISSERY, PARALAM, THRISSUR. BY MR.P.RAVINDRAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, RTA, THRISSUR. 3. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. 4. SAJEEVAN N.K., KODAPPULLY HOUSE, P.O.CHAZZHOOR, THRISSUR. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. N. SUDHA DEVI, R4 BY ADV. MR.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.23495/2007-V: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, RTA DTD. 20/04/2007. EXT.P.1.A: COPY OF THE TIMINGS ALLOTTED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE SECRETARY, RTA, THRISSUR DTD. 28/02/06. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE AGENDA IN ITEM NO. 138. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE EXTRACT FROM THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE MEETING OF THE RTA, THRISSUR DTD.19/10/2005. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE M.V.A.A. NO. 715/2005 FILED BY THE R.4. DTD. 16/12/2005. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 29/03/06 IN M.V.A.A. NO. 715/05. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RTA, THRISSUR DTD. 10/07/2006. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SECRETARY, RTA, THRISSUR DTD. 19/04/2007. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF NOTIFICATION DTD. 09/05/2007. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 23495 of 2007 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 19th June, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a stage carriage operator operating in the route Ayyanthole – Thrissur – Thriprayar. A regular permit was granted for the same in 2005 and he is operating on the strength of the permit so issued. The 4th respondent herein, who is operating in the route Perinjanam – Adat (via) Chalingad, Kuttamangalam, Painoor, Triprayer, Peringottukara, Kondolikadavu, Thrissur and Muthuvara, applied for variation of his regular permit with revised timings and additional trips. That application was rejected on the ground that as per the proposed timings, certain trips are curtailed and 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. By Ext. P5 judgment, the Tribunal found that although there is no route curtailment, there is trip curtailment as is evidenced from the proposed and existing time schedules. But, the 4th respondent submitted before the Tribunal that he does not require curtailment of trips. In such circumstances, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the RTA for considering the question of variation without substantial alteration of existing trips. Thereafter, the RTA again considered the application of the 4th respondent and granted the prayer in the application by Ext. P6 order. That is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that what the Tribunal has directed is to consider the question of grant of variation without curtailing the existing trips. But, by Ext. P6 order, the RTA has simply allowed the application filed by the 4th respondent, which includes the curtailment of existing trips also, which goes against Ext. P5 judgment. He therefore seeks the following reliefs: W.P.C. No. 23495/07 -: 2 :- “Call for the records leading to Ext. P5, P6 & P7 and quash the same by the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other such appropriate writ, order or direction.” 3. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner, the the learned Government Pleader and counsel for the 4th respondent. 4. I specifically directed the 4th respondent to file an affidavit as to whether what has been allowed is the original application which was the subject matter of Ext. P5 judgment of the Tribunal or a a modified application in accordance with Ext. P5 judgment of the Tribunal. An affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondent to the effect that he has not filed any further modified application. From Ext. P6, it is abundantly clear that what has been allowed is the 4th respondent's application, which includes the curtailment of existing trips. In view of Ext. P5 judgment of the Tribunal, that cannot be permitted. Accordingly, Ext. P6 is quashed. However, I make it clear that it would be open to the 4th respondent to file a fresh application with modifications as stipulated in Ext. P5 judgment, in which event, the RTA shall consider the same in accordance with the direction in Ext. P5 judgment as expeditiously as possible. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/