IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 16TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 3326 of 2008(U) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- SAJU K.JOHN, KILIKUNNEL, SOUTH PARAVUR, UDAYAMPEROOR. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. 2. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. SECRETARY, R.T.A., KOTTAYAM. 4. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS DTO, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. I.V. PRAMOD BY SHRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)3326/2008 ---------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of February 2008 Judgment Variation of permit was granted to the petitioner by Ext.P3. However, as against the request for Limited Stop Ordinary Service (LSOS), the variation granted was as ordinary service. An appeal was filed against the order limiting the variation of regular permit as ordinary service and the matter was remanded by Ext.P4. By the time, the matter was remanded, a new draft modification dated 9.5.2007 had come into force. In view of the overlapping on the notified route, while considering the matter afresh, the RTA by Ext.P6 revoked the variation granted. This is obviously in terms of the provisions contained in the aforesaid notification. The petitioner again challenged the decision of the RTA before the Tribunal and the matter was again considered by the Tribunal. In Ext.P8, the Tribunal took the view that the RTA while considering the request was bound by the draft notification dated 9.5.2007 and therefore has rightly revoked the grant itself. 2. Counsel for the petitioner contends that when the W.P.(C)3326/2008 2 remand was limited to the question of confining the grant of extension as ordinary service, the RTA should not have revoked the variation granted. I am not in a position to agree with the learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Though the permit was granted before the notification dated 9.5.2007 was issued, the fact remains that the matter was reconsidered by the RTA only on 7.8.2007 which is much after the notification had come into force. If that be so, the RTA could not have violated the terms of the notification. That apart, the notification only saves the existing operators as on or prior 18.4.2007 and as the petitioner was not an existing operator, he is not entitled to the benefits of the saving clause. If that be so, the view taken by the Tribunal cannot be faulted with. The writ petition fails. Dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE css/