IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 30679 of 2007(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- A.RENUGOPALAN, KUNNATH HOUSE, SOUTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY TIS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRASPORT AUTHORITY/REGIONAL TRASPORT OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.30679/07 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 22.8.06. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 3.2.07 IN MVAA NO.730/06. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF RTA DATED 15.3.2007. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.6.07 IN MVAA NO.228/07. EXT.P5: THE TRUE COPY OF THE TIME SHEET OF THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED TIMINGS. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGH ROUTE SKETCH. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 30679 OF 2007 B ===================== Dated this the 1st day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T Variation of permit applied for by the petitioner was rejected by the RTA by Ext.P3. The reason stated in Ext.P3 is that the shuttle operation within the city will create confusion among the travelling public and will have the effect of increasing the number of stage carriages as fixed and specified in the Government order dated 15/2/1993 issued under Section 71(3) of M.V.Act. Against the order of the RTA, petitioner filed appeal to the Tribunal as MVAA No.228/07. That appeal was rejected by Ext.P4. It is challenging Exts. P3 and P4, this writ petition has been filed. 2. Ext.P4 shows that the Tribunal has found that the extension sought from Thevara to Vathuruthy and Desabhimani to Ponekkara would be beneficial to the travelling public. Then WPC 30679/07 :2 : Tribunal came to the conclusion that trips in the morning and in the night from Kareparambu to Poothotta have to be curtailed, which according to the Tribunal was inconvenient to the travelling public. Petitioner makes reference to Ext.P5 containing the existing and proposed timings. Making reference to Ext.P5, it is contended that the morning and night trips from Kareparambu to Poothotta are not curtailed although there is variation in the timings. This submission of the petitioner seems to be wellfounded. 3. If the contention of the petitioner that there is no curtailment of trips as wrongly found by the STAT, it has to be held that the reasoning of the Tribunal is incorrect. Therefore Ext.P4 rendered on an erroneous appreciation of facts, deserves to be quashed and I do so. Tribunal shall reconsider MVAA No.228/07, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. Rp