IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH OCTOBER 2011 / 12TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 23754 of 2011(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- O.PRADEEPAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, GEETHA NIVAS, VENGAD.P.O., ANJARAKKANDI, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU J.VALLYARA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY PIN 676505. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM PIN 676505. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.M.MANOJ THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No. 23754/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT IN RESPECT OF S/C KL 58 9666 VALIED UPTO 21/2/2010. EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF REGULAR PERMIT SUBMITTED ON 11/1/2010. EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY ,VADAKARA, DATED 29/1/2010 VIDE ITEM NO.28. EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KANNUR DATED 19/02/2010 VIDE ITEM NO.16. EXHIBIT P5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR DATED 19/02/2010 VIDE ITEM NO.48. EXHIBIT P6 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 6/5/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 PHOTOCOPY OF THE RENEWED REGULAR PERMIT IN RESPECT OF S/C. KL- 58-9666 VALIED UP TO 21/2/2015 EXHIBIT P8 PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.15543/2010 DATED 8/6/2010 EXHIBIT P9 PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 24/6/201O VIDE ITEM NO.44 EXHIBIT P10 PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN OP NO.9568/2001-L DATED 29/3/2001. EXHIBIT P11 PHOTOCOPY OF THE CONVERSION APPLICATION DATED 25/6/2011. EXHIBIT P12 PHOTOCOPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 29//6/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /True Copy/ vps PA to Judge P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 23754 OF 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a stage carriage operator operating a stage carriage on the route Thrissur-Payyannur (Via) Kunnamkulam, Valanchery, Changuvetty, Kozhikode, Kannur and Thaliparamba as a limited stop ordinary service. The permit was valid till 21.2.2010. Within the stipulated time, the petitioner applied for renewal of the permit by submitting Ext.P2 application dated 11.1.2010. After obtaining the concurrence of the Regional Transport Authorities at Vadakara, Kannur and Thrissur the Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram granted renewal of the permit for a period of 5 years from 22.2.2010 to 21.2.2015. While the application for renewal of the permit was pending, the petitioner applied for change of classification of the service as a super fast service by submitting Ext.P6 application dated 6.5.2010. The Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram considered the said application and decided to seek the concurrence of the Regional Transport Authorities at Vadakara, Kannur and Thrissur for consideration of the application. Ext.P9 WPC No.23754/2011 2 is the proceedings issued in that regard. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P9 and seeking a direction to the first respondent to consider the application for change of the class of service as a super fast service without insisting on the concurrence from the Regional Transport Authorities at Vadakara, Kannur and Thrissur. Relying on the decision of this Court in Musthafa v. Regional Transport Authority Malappuram (2000 (3) KLT 610) and the unreported decision of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 21979 of 2010 it is contended that the concurrence of the sister Regional Transport Authorities is not required for consideration of the application for change of the class of service. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides. A learned single Judge of this Court has in Musthafa v. Regional Transport Authority Malappuram (supra) held that concurrence of sister Regional Transport Authorities is required only where there is a variation of the conditions of stage carriage permit either by the inclusion of a new route or routes or a new area in any other region or regions, or the exclusion of any such route or routes or area. It was held that any other variation WPC No.23754/2011 3 does not require the concurrence of the sister Regional Transport Authorities. The same view was taken by another Judge in W.P. (C) No. 21979 of 2010. I am therefore of the opinion that the stand taken by the Regional Transport Authority in Ext.P9 cannot be sustained. I accordingly allow the writ petition and quash Ext.P9 to the extent it directs the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram to seek the concurrence of sister Regional Transport Authorities for change of classification of the service as super fast service. The Regional Transport Authority shall consider the the petitioner's application for change of classification of service without insisting on the concurrence of the sister Regional Transport Authorities and take an appropriate decision thereon in accordance with law expeditiously and in any event within two months from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before the second respondent. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps