IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2008 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 4007 of 2008(B) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- C.K.PURUSHOTHAMAN, CHALIL HOUSE, THIRUNALLOOR P.O., CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. 2. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C., ALAPPUZHA. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. M.R. SABU, ADV. SHRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/03/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.4007/2008-B: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE R.1. DTD. 05/06/2007. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM AS M.V.A.A. NO. 515/2007 DTD. 23/08/2007 FILED BEFORE THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL . EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN M.V.A.A. NO. 515/2007 GIVING THE DETAILS REGARDING THE OPERATION OF OTHER VEHICLES DTD. 26/11/2007. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN M.V.A.A. NO. 515/2008 DTD. 13/12/2007. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 4007 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: MARCH 27, 2008 JUDGMENT The challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P1 and P4. 2. Petitioner had applied for variation of permit and that was rejected by the RTA by Ext.P1, as according to the RTA, such variation would affect the travelling public on the existing route. Further, it is also stated that such curtailment will offend the draft notification dated 9.5.2007. This was challenged before the Tribunal in Ext.P2 appeal and before the Tribunal the petitioner had filed Ext.P3 affidavit giving the details of the permits that are already granted in the sector in which the curtailment was sought for by the petitioner. It is stated that by Ext.P4, the appeal was rejected by the STAT. Though it has been held that the notification dated 9.5.2007 is of no relevance, the Tribunal found that the appellant was not able to show that the proposed variation will be of benefit to the travelling public. This conclusion has been arrived at WP(C) 4007/08 Page numbers based on a report of the AMVI which was available in the RTA's files. 3. Impugning Exts.P1 and P4 learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the conclusion in Ext.P1proceedings of the RTA that the variation will adversely affect the travelling public on the existing route was arrived at without any material. It is stated that before the Tribunal, although he had supplied materials through Ext.P3 affidavit to conclude that the variation would not adversely affect the travelling public, ignoring such materials and relying entirely on the report of the AMVI, the appeal was dismissed. 4. On going through Ext.P4, I am inclined to agree with the counsel for the petitioner. As already seen, the RTA relied on the notification dated 9.5.2007 which has been held to be of no relevance by the STAT. Therefore all that is surviving for consideration is whether the variation will adversely affect the travelling public. While considering this, necessarily the material supplied by the petitioner in Ext.P3 affidavit ought to have been taken note of by the STAT. It is also seen that this material was not available before the RTA. WP(C) 4007/08 Page numbers 5. In these circumstances I am inclined to set aside Ext.P4 and direct that the matter shall be reconsidered by the RTA. It will be open to the petitioner to produce materials in support of his contention that avoidance of the trip following the variation sought for, will not adversely affect the travelling public. The RTA shall reconsider the matter as directed and pass fresh orders thereon 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 mt/-