IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2010 / 25TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1494 of 2010(J) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- A.M.NOUSHAD, AATTUPARAMBATHU HOUSE, P.O.NAATTIKA, TRICHUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.SANGEETHA LAKSHMANA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, TRICHUR (REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY) 2. THE SECRETARY, R.T.A., TRICHUR. BY GOVT. PLEADER MRR.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.1494 of 2010 - J ---------------------------------------- Dated 15th January, 2010 Judgment The petitioner is a stage carriage operator operating the stage carriage bearing registration No.KL/08W-1683 on the route Guruvayur-Ernakuklam South. Ext.P1 is a true copy of the stage carriage permit issued to him on 17.2.2007. In the year 2008, the petitioner applied to the Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur for variation of the regular permit by curtailing the route from Koonammavu to Kunnumpuram, via, Pathalam. The Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur by Ext.P2 order passed on 7.8.2008 declined the said request holding that the curtailment of the route will adversely affect the pilgrims of the area namely, the area presently serviced by the petitioner and that the route through which variation is sought is a well served sector. Aggrieved by Ext.P2, the petitioner filed M.V.A.A. No.543 of 2008 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. By Ext.P3 order passed on 19.12.2008, the said appeal was rejected. Exts.P2 and P3 are under challenge in this writ petition. W.P.(C) No. 1494/2010 2 2. Ext.P3 appellate order was passed on 19.12.2008. This writ petition was filed on 14.1.2010. The petitioner has explained the delay in challenging Ext.P3 by stating that though another counsel was entrusted with the files with instructions to file a writ petition, he had not made arrangements for filing the writ petition. The Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur and the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam have in the impugned orders held that curtailment of the route from Koonammavu to Kunnumpuram via. Panaikulam, Pathalam and Majummel will adversely affect the residents of the said locality and that the sector from Guruvayur to Kunnumpuram via. Varapuzha bridge is served by other operators including the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. The authorities concerned have held that if the request made by the petitioner for curtailment of the route is granted, residents of the locality which is presently served by the petitioner's stage carriage bus will be put to considerable difficulty. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal has also noticed that the convenience or inconvenience of the travelling public is a relevant consideration while granting or rejecting a request for curtailment of the route. W.P.(C) No. 1494/2010 3 3. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by Smt.Sangeetha Lakshmana, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. On going through the pleadings and after hearing the submissions made at the Bar, I am in full agreement with the Regional Transport Authority and the State Transport Appellate Authority that if the curtailment of the route sought by the petitioner is granted the travelling public including the residents of the locality presently served by the petitioner's stage carriage bus will be put to considerable difficulty. The view taken by the Regional Transport Authority and the State Transport Appellate Tribunal is a plausible view on the facts and it cannot be said to be perverse warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I accordingly hold that no grounds have been made out to interfere with Exts.P2 and P3. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge vaa