IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2010 / 13TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 14586 of 2010(W) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ NANDAKUMAR, AGED 33, S/O. VASUDEVAN NAMBOOTHIRI, EMBRANMADAM, H.NO.3/70, NAYARAMBALAM.P.O., NORTH PARUR. BY ADVS. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON, SRI.M.JITHESH MENON. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,ERNAKULAM. 3. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS DISTRICT TRASNPORT OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. R1 TO R4 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 14586 OF 2010 W ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd June, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P6 judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT for short) directing him to submit a fresh application for the grant of a permit. The contention of the petitioner is that he had filed an affidavit before the STAT requesting that a permit be granted on his application, curtailing the route with respect to which he had applied for permit. 2. The petitioner had submitted an application for the issue of a regular permit to operate on the route, North Parur-Thevara Junction via Cherai, Narakkal, Kalamukku, Gosri Bridges, Ernakulam High Court Junction, Menaka, Boat Jetty and Pallimukku in respect of his stage carriage No: KL-07/AN 567. The application was rejected on the ground that for a distance of 6 km, the route was overlapping the notified route, Trivandrum-Kannur, approved by notification No: 42/09/Trans dated 14/7/09. The petitioner challenged the rejection of his application for regular permit before the STAT in MVAA No: 538/2009. The petitioner filed an affidavit dated 12/3/2010 before the STAT seeking to limit his services up WPC 14586/2010 2 to Ernakulam High Court junction, thus avoiding the objectionable overlapping. In the light of the affidavit filed by the petitioner, the STAT found that the petitioner's request should be considered afresh. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed reserving the right of the petitioner to file a fresh application avoiding the objectionable overlapping. Such a modified application if made, was directed to be considered by the RTA, Ernakulam. 3. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the STAT erred in directing the petitioner to make a fresh application. The proper course was for the STAT to have remanded the entire matter in view of the affidavit filed by the petitioner. My attention is drawn to Section 72(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short) to contend that the Regional Transport Authority (RTA) is sufficiently empowered to grant the permit with such modifications as it deems fit. The only restriction on the above power is that such permit shall not be granted in respect of a route or area that is not specified in the application. 4. The contentions of the counsel for the petitioner are opposed by the learned Govt. Pleader. He relies on a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in Girija Devi v. K.T.Mathew (1991 (1)KLT 353. In the said decision it has been held that the RTA has no power to grant a permit by varying the route to avoid an WPC 14586/2010 3 objectionable overlapping. At any rate it is pointed out that the STAT has only directed the petitioner to make a fresh application, which does not cause any prejudice to him. 5. I notice that the application submitted by the petitioner was rejected for the reason that there was objectionable overlapping on a notified route. Therefore, the action of the authority refusing to grant the permit cannot be found fault with. In the light of the fresh affidavit filed by the petitioner, the STAT felt that it was better that the petitioner submitted a fresh application. Therefore, he has been granted the liberty to submit a fresh application avoiding the objectionable overlapping and the authority has been directed to consider the same. I do not find any reason to interfere with the above direction of the STAT. The exercise of discretion by the STAT cannot be characterised as perverse or unjustified. In the above view of the matter, I do not find any grounds to grant any of the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 14586/2010 4 WPC 14586/2010 5