IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 12TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 13112 of 2007(J) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M.G.SUGUNAN, S/O.GOPALAN, AGED 48, MOOLAKANDY HOUSE, ANNASSERY P.O., THALAKULATHUR, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE. 3. V.T.VINOD KUMAR, VALAKKATHARAKANDY, THATTARAKKAL HOUSE, KARAPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE. *ADDITIONAL R4 IMPLEADED: 4. C.K.C. HUSSAIN, S/O. MOIDEENKUTTY, CHATHANKANDY HOUSE, P.O.ELATHUR, KOZHIKODE. *IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. RESPONDENT 4 AS PER ORDER DTD. 12/06/07 IN I.A. 5731/07. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SUDHA DEVI, R3 & ADDL. R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/02/2011, ALONG WITH W.P.(C). NO. 8722 OF 2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.13112/2007-J: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE AGENDA OF ITEM 36 REGARDING THE REQUEST FOR REGULAR VARIATION SOUGHT BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE TIMING PROCEEDINGS OF THE R.2. ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 15/07/2006 OF THE R.2. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DTD. 31/01/2007 IN M.V.A.A. 715/2006 OF THE S.T.A.T., ERNAKULAM. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE TIMING NOTICE DTD. 06/02/2007 ISSUED BY THE R.2. TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 27/09/2005 IN M.V.A.R.P. 182/2005 OF THE S.T.A.T., ERNAKULAM. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF ITEM NO. 36 OF THE AGENDA OF THE R.2. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R3.A: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE R.2. DTD. 19/04/2005. EXT.R3.B: COPY OF THE PERMIT WHICH THIS RESPONDENT OBTAINED CERTIFIED COPY IN RESPECT OF THE VARIED PERMIT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R3.C: ROUGH SKETCH OF THE ROUTE. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) Nos.13112 & 8722 OF 2007 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT W.P.(C)No.13112/2007 The petitioner is the owner of KL 11/S 7521, which was originally operating in the route City Stop-Medical College- Elathur. The petitioner sought variation of the permit twice, which were granted. Subsequently, when the matter came up for settlement of timings for the varied permit, it was found that the third respondent also figured as an objector, which was pursuant to an order in MVARP No.182/2005. That order is Ext.P6. The petitioner is challenging the same. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that while passing that order, the Tribunal erred on facts. The Tribunal came to the finding that the Railway Station and Devagiri are not part of the route for which permit was granted to the petitioner, which is not correct in view of Ext.P1 is the petitioner's contention. The petitioner submits that Ext.P1 is the agenda for the meeting of W.P.(C)Nos.13112/07 &Con.case 2 the RTA for considering the variation applied for by the petitioner, which contained the proposed timings also, in which Railway Station and Devagiri college are also mentioned. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the varied permit of the petitioner included Railway Station and Devagiri college as well. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 and the learned Government Pleader. The operative portion of Ext.P6 reads thus: “5. The Point:- The original route was City stop-Medical college-Elathur. By extension it became City stop- Medical college-Badirur. Railway station and Devagiri are not on that sector. The application for variation is there at page 2 of RTA records, it does not show that any claim was made to operate service either to Railway station or upto Devagiri. Of course pending application the claim can be modified by the petitioner. But in the file there is no petition for modification. The order also does not show any grant by making modification of the claim. Hence it is clear that no grant was made to operate through Railway station or upto Devagiri. Secretary is not entitled to extend or modify the route on the guise of settlement of timing. But timing is fixed to pass through Railway station and operation upto Devagiri. Hence the Secretary has exceeded his authority. So the timing order is liable to be set aside. In the result, the revision petition is allowed and impugned order is set aside and the Secretary is directed to settle timing afresh avoiding sectors Medical college-Devagiri and City-Railway station”. From the same, it is very clear that the Tribunal allowed the W.P.(C)Nos.13112/07 &Con.case 3 revision petition on the ground that Railway Station and Devagiri College do not figure in the application for variation submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner has not chosen to produce a copy of his application to prove otherwise. In fact the petitioner has no case that the application does contain Railway Station and Devagiri College. As such the finding of fact in the judgment could not be disproved by the petitioner. Without satisfying this Court that there is any factual mistake in the order, the petitioner cannot succeed in this writ petition. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed. W.P.(C)No.8722/2007 This writ petition is filed by respondents 3 and 4 in W.P. (C)No.13112/2007 for implementation of Ext.P6 order challenged in that writ petition. Insofar as I have dismissed W.P.(C)No.13112/2007 and the petitioners in this writ petition are entitled to the fruits of Ext.P6 order in that writ petition, no separate orders are necessary in this writ petition. This writ petition is disposed of with the said direction. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)Nos.13112/07 &Con.case 4 W.P.(C)Nos.13112/07 &Con.case 5