IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2008 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 12789 of 2008(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- P.P.SAFEER BABU, VICE PRESIDENT, VENGARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDY JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM. 3. K.P.ABDURAHIMAN, S/O.MOHAMMED, KARAPOOLA HOUSE, P.O.NARUKARA. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU J.VALLYARA FOR R3 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.12789/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: ROUGH SKETCH OF THE ROUTE. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 14.3.2007. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT.24.1.2007. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM AS MVARP NO.141/2007 DT.7.4.2007 FILED BEFORE THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN MVARP NO.141/2007 DT.31.1.2008. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 12789 OF 2008 V ==================== Dated this the 9th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T Though notice is served, there is no appearance on behalf of the 3rd respondent operator. 2. By Ext.P3, application filed by the 3rd respondent for variation of permit was allowed by the 1st respondent. The petitioner being the Vice President of the Panchayat filed Ext.P4 revision against Ext.P3. That was rejected by the Tribunal as per Ext.P5 and the said order is under challenge. It is rightly pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal while considering Ext.P4 revision proceeded as though the issue raised for consideration was one relating to settlement of timing. Thus the basis on which the Tribunal appreciated the case as one of settlement of timing and not one of variation of permit is erroneous and for that reason Ext.P5 is liable to be set aside and I do so. The Tribunal shall reconsider MVARP No.141/07 with notice to the concerned parties and pass appropriate orders thereon. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp