IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 20TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 17712 of 2008(H) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- K.V.RAMESH, S/O.VISWAMBARAN, KOVIL PARAMBIL HOUSE, KODUNGALLOOR. BY ADVOCATE MR.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY,REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.R.SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 17712 of 2008(H) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 26.9.2006. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 29.11.2006 IN M.V.A.R.P NO. 601/06 EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 4.3.2005. EXT.P4 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.6.2007 IN M.V.A.R.P. NO. 601/2006. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE rhs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C) No.17712 of 2008 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Exhibits P1 and P4. Petitioner is a regular stage carriage permit holder operating on the route Guruvayur-Ernakulam. In respect of his Stage Carriage KL-8/AB 9777, he sought variation of permit in the sector Koonammavu -Kunnumpuram and that was declined by Exhibit P1, on the ground that it will adversely affect the traveling public. Revision filed to the Tribunal was dismissed by Exhibit P4. A reading of Exhibit P4 shows that a similar case was rejected by the S.T.A.T as per its order in M.V.A.R.P No. 356/2005 and that the same was confirmed by this Court in the judgment, W.P© No.300/2006. In the light of the above facts, I do not think that the petitioner can successfully challenge the impugned order. True Exhibit P3, enquiry report is to the effect that the variation if allowed, it will not adverse to the traveling public. However, I notice that the report is of the year 2005 and the application made and its consideration by the R.T.A was in 2006. It is in W.P.(C) No.17712 /2008 2 these circumstances, the R.T.A or the Tribunal cannot be faulted for the view taken. Writ petition fails and hence, it is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm