IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 13TH JUNE 2008 / 23RD JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 11721 of 2008(U) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- CHINNAMMA SCARIA, KARUKUNNEL HOUSE, KATTAPPANA. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, IDUKKI REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, IDUKKI. 3. THE K.S.R.T.C. REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.V.MANOJKUMAR - R1 & R2 ADV. SHRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC - R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).11721/2008-U APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF R.T.A., MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 28/03/2006 GRANTING CONCURRENCE. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE R.T.A., ERNAKULAM DATED 15/03/2007 GRANTING CONCURRENCE. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 09/07/2007 EXT.P4: COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM AS MVAA.NO.577/2007 DATED 22/09/2007 FILED BEFORE THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN M.V.A.A.NO.577/2007 DATED 16/02/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL // TRUE COPY // Rs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.11721/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is an applicant, for grant of a regular permit on the route Ernakulam South-Kumly. The application was made to the RTA, Idukki. As per Exts.P1 and P2, RTA, Muvattupuzha and RTA, Ernakulam granted concurrence. However, RTA, Ernakulam, in Ext.P2 limited the route up to Kaloor. The matter was considered by the RTA, Idukki and by Ext.P3, the RTA rejected the application for permit for the reasons mentioned therein. The petitioner filed Ext.P4 appeal before the Tribunal and that was also dismissed by Ext.P5 judgment. It is challenging Ext.P3 and Ext.P5, this writ petition has been filed. 2. As is seen from Ext.P3 proceedings of the RTA, Idukki, the first ground for rejection is that the distance of two kilometers from Ernakulam-Kadavanthra comes under 2 Ernakulam-Muvattupuzha scheme as per notification dated 28.8.1961 and hence the distance between Ernakulam South to Kadavanthra overlaps this route. In so far as this ground of rejection is concerned, first of all, the RTA, Ernakulam in Ext.P2 limited the grant up to Kaloor and therefore there is no question of plying the vehicle plying from Ernakulam South to Kadavanthra. In any case in view of Ext.P2, the concurrence granted by the RTA, Ernakulam, the RTA, Idukki ought to have dealt with the request of the petitioner in consistent with Ext.P2. 3. The second reason stated is that the distance of 2 kms from Kaloor to Palarivattom overlaps Thiruvananthapurm-Palakkad scheme. In so far as this objection is concerned, again the learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Ext.P2 concurrence granted by the RTA, Ernakulam. The next objection that is raised is that a distance of 1.5 kms from Pallakattuthazham to Perumbavoor overlaps Aluva-Kattapana scheme. In so far as this ground is concerned, it is pointed out that this sector 3 come within Muvattupuzha RTA, which has granted concurrence as per Ext.P1 and therefore there was no basis for this ground of rejection. Next reason for rejection is that a distance of 2 kms from Cheruthoni to Idukki overlaps Aluva-Kattapana and Kottayam-Kattapana schemes. Petitioner concedes that this is an objectionalble overlapping. Therefore, before the RTA, in the memorandum of appeal itself the petitioner had requested that if the same sector was objectionable, his request may be considered avoiding the same and with a deviation via Mariyapuram. However, this request made by the petitioner has not engaged the attention of the STAT while disposing of his appeal by Ext.P5 judgment. 4. In my view, the request of the petitioner has not been properly dealt with either by the original authority or the appellate authority and it needs to be reconsidered. Accordingly, Exts.P3 and P5 will stand quashed and the matter will stand remitted back to the RTA Idukki for fresh consideration. It is clarified that, it will be open to the 4 petitioner to suggest modification avoiding the objectionable portion from Cheruthoni-Idukki and in which case application will be considered in the light of the modification applied for by the petitioner. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before the RTA for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. 5