IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2009 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 6471 of 2009(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.BHASKARAN, KILIVAYIL HOUSE, IRINGALLUR P.O., VENGARA. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM. SR. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.K.S.MUHAMMED HASHIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.6471 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the holder of a regular permit to operate on the route Ernakulam-Kozhikode. This is a long distance route having a distance of 220 kilometers. As such, the service is expected to serve long distance passengers and not primarily intended for short distance passengers. Formerly before the construction of the Varappuzha Bridge, service was being conducted through Edappally-Muttar Bridge, FACT Junction, Pathalam, Panaikulam and Koonanmavu. After commissioning of the Varappuzha Bridge, which reduces the distance by 6.5 kilometers, the petitioner applied for variation of the route along the Varappuzha bridge. Since this is an inter-district route and the permit was issued by the Kozhikode RTA, the said authority sought prior concurrence of the sister RTA, Ernakulam, who is the 1st respondent herein. But, by Ext.P1 order, the RTA, Ernakulam, rejected the concurrence for variation of the permit on the ground that it would affect the travelling public. The petitioner filed Ext.P2 appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, which was also dismissed by Ext.P3 on the same ground. The petitioner challenges Exts.P1 and P3 in this writ petition. 2. According to the petitioner, the approach taken by both the RTA and the STAT is erroneous. Long distance service is not intended 2 for short distance passengers and therefore, it cannot be said that by variation the public would be affected, since by reduction of the distance, the long distance passengers would certainly be benefited. The petitioner further contends that the STAT and the 1st respondent had in other cases of variation held that since variation would benefit long distance passengers, concurrence has to be given. He relies on Exts.P4, P5 and P6 orders in this regard. 3. The learned Government Pleader opposes the prayers and supports the impugned orders on the same reasoning as in the impugned orders. 4. From Exts.P4 to P6 I find that exactly identical variation applied for by similarly situated stage carriage operators have been allowed by the Tribunal as well as the 1st respondent, as evidenced by Exts.P4 to P6. Therefore, I am at a loss to understand how in the case of the petitioner, the Tribunal and the 1st respondent could take a different view. Further, I find logic in the contention that in respect of such inter-district routes having such route length, what is relevant is the convenience of long distance passengers and not short distance passengers. By reducing the distance, the long distances passengers would certainly be benefited. In the above circumstances, I am satisfied that the 1st respondent should consider the petitioner's 3 application in accordance with Exts.P4 to P6 orders and the observations hereinabove. Accordingly, Exts.P1 and P3 orders are quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the petitioner's application in the light of the findings herein above and Exts.P4 to P6 orders. Fresh orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge