IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2009 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 29606 of 2009(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.J.JIJO, S/O.K.M.JOY, AGED 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT KUNNATHUMATTATHIL HOUSE, MUDAVOOR P.O. VAZHAPPILLY, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, IDUKKI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,IDUKKI. SR. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.K.S.MUHAMMED HASHIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 29606 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 11th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a stage carriage operator operating on the route Devikulam-Aluva. The petitioner applied for variation of permit by extending the route from Kothamangalan to Muvattupuzha and also by shifting the halting place to Muvattupuzha from Kothamangalam. The RTA rejected the application for variation, by Ext.P4 order. The petitioner challenged the same in M.V.A.A. No.623/2008. By Ext.P5 judgment, the Tribunal allowed the appeal setting aside the impugned order and directing the RTA to grant the variation of the permit as sought for by the petitioner, subject to settlement of timings. However, by Ext.P6, the Tribunal passed the following order: “Heard. The variation includes extension of route by 12 Kms so that the route length increase to 157 Kms. As per rule 2(oa), the ordinary service is defined as having route length not more than 140 Kms. Hence adjourned with the direction to the applicant to modify the proposed variation.” The petitioner challenges the same seeking the following reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or such other writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Exhibit P6 and quash the same. (ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction commanding the respondent to forthwith comply with Exhibit P5 judgment of the STAT in MVAA NO.623 of 2008.” 2. The only objection raised by the learned Government Pleader is that steps have already been initiated for challenging Ext.P5 2 order appropriately on the ground that the route overlaps a notified route. 3. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. 4. Ext.P5 order was passed as early as on 23.1.2009. I do not find any justification to delay complying with Ext.P5 order even after almost an year. In the above circumstances, Ext.P6 is quashed and the respondent is directed to grant the permit as directed in Ext.P5 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. However, this would be subject to the order in any proceedings that may be initiated by the Government for challenging Ext.P5. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge