IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2008 / 11TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 22049 of 2006(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BEENA RAVINDRAN, VELICHAPPAT HOUSE, MUTHUVARA, P.O.PUZHAKKAL, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR. 3. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 22049/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 19.10.2005. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 13.1.2006 IN M.V.A.A. NO.59/2006. EXT.P3 - THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.3.2006 IN M.V.A.A. NO.59/2006. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.22049 OF 2006-Y ----------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The petitioner is a stage carriage operator, operating on the route Ayyanthole – Thrissur – Kunnamkulam – Guruvayur – Chavakkad, on the strength of a regular permit granted in favour of the stage carriage bearing registration No. KL-8/J 6858. She applied for variation of that permit. The said application was rejected by the R.T.A., Thrissur, by Ext. P1 proceedings dated 19.10.2005, on the ground that the travelling public, especially, the students will be affected, if the variation sought for is granted. The petitioner filed Ext.P2 appeal against that decision before the S.T.A.T. Before the Tribunal, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the students or the travelling public will not be affected, if the last trip at 8.50 p.m is allowed to be deviated through Poonkunnam instead of Ayyanthole. The said contention was upheld by the S.T.A.T and the appeal was allowed by Ext.P3 judgment, directing the R.T.A to grant deviation for the last trip, to operate from Thrissur through Poonkunnam instead of Ayyanthole. This writ WPC 22049/06 2 petition was filed, challenging Ext.P3. 2. The petitioner submits, she asked for three variations, of which one alone was allowed by the S.T.A.T. But, it is clear from Ext.P3 that only one point was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner before the S.T.A.T and that was allowed. The petitioner does not have a case in the writ petition that other points were also argued by her counsel before the Tribunal and even then they were not considered. So, I find nothing illegal with Ext.P3. The Tribunal cannot be blamed for not considering the points not urged before it. In the result, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. 3rd October, 2008. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. Nm/