IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2008 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 27873 of 2008(R) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- BAIJU GEORGE, MOORKANATTUKARAN HOUSE, P.O.VARANDARAPPILLY, THRISSUR, BY FATHER GEORGE, POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.R. SREELATHA FOR R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.27873/2008 R APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION DTD. 12/07/2007. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 18/08/2007. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM IN MVAA NO.795/07. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN MVAA NO.795/07 DTD. 26/08/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.27873 of 2008 ------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of December, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner operates a regular stage carriage permit on the route Kodali-Chamakkala. He preferred an application for variation of the conditions under Section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The variation sought for related to the change of halting space and he also sought for permission to halt at Varandarappilly. The curtailment was for a distance of 5 km and an extension was also sought from Kattoor to Chendrappinni via Mothirampilly. The application was considered and rejected by the Regional Transport Authority under Ext.P2 order and against that, the petitioner preferred Ext.P3 appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner contends that the Regional Transport Authority had rejected the application for variation and the petitioner would be satisfied W.P.(C).NO.27873/08 :: 2 :: if the application is considered without any curtailment and without change in the existing time. The appeal was also rejected as per Ext.P4, which reads as follows: “As could be seen from the report of the Eqnuiry Oficer, as borne out from page 16 of the RTA files, the proposed variation will adversely affect the travelling public, in as much as curtailment is in respect of an ill-served sector. While considering the request for variation what is decisive is the convenience of the travelling public as enjoined u/s. 80(3) of the M.V.Act. In that view of the matter, the rejection of the request is in accordance with rules governing such matters. The impugned order therefore does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety.” Ext.P4 is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the authorities below have considered the application for variation on the W.P.(C).NO.27873/08 :: 3 :: premise that it deals with the curtailment of the existing route. It is submitted by the petitioner that the petitioner is only seeking an extension and no curtailment. If that be so, it should be considered by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the matter requires reconsideration by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. 4. Accordingly, Ext.P4 is set aside and the State Transport Appellate Tribunal is directed to reconsider M.V.A.A.795/07 in the light of the limited prayer now pressed forth by the petitioner. It is made clear that the rejection of the petitioner's application for curtailment of the trip is not being interfered with by this court. The reconsideration will be restricted to a consideration of the application for extension. Revised orders shall be passed within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. W.P.(C).NO.27873/08 :: 4 :: Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment and a copy of the writ petition before 1st respondent, for compliance. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy//