IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2009 / 22ND SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 33917 of 2008(K) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- P.SUJITH KUMAR, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, PUTHALATH HOUSE, KOTTANCHURAM, MANATHANA, PERAVOOR, THALASSERY. BY ADV. MR.K.G.ANIL BABU RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KANNUR. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KANNUR. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.M.A.ASIF THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.33917/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT ISSUED ON 30.7.07. P2:- COPY OF THE TIME SHEET OF KL-13/G/2483/ P3:- COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE IST RESPONDENT COMMUNICATED BY THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 27.11.07. P4:- COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL NO.308/08 DTD. 19.5.08. P5:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE S.T.A.T. ERNAKULAM IN M.V.A.A. 308/08 DTD. 12.8.08. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss V.GIRI, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = W.P.(C). No. 33917 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = Dated this the 13th day of August 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner is the holder of a regular permit on the route Kottiyoor-Manikkadavu-Chandanakkampara (via) Kelakam, Thundi, Peravoor, Iritty and Vattiyamthode. An application for renewal of Ext.P2 is stated to be pending. Petitioner applied for the variation of the permit, which was rejected as per Ext.P3 and affirmed by the appellate tribunal by Ext.P5. Exts.P3 and P5 are under challenge in this writ petition. 2. I heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. Going through Exts.P3 and P5, the only ground on which the application for variation was rejected is the alleged inconvenience of the travelling public. No doubt, convenience of the travelling public is a relevant factor while considering the application for variation either by extension or by curtailment. The contention in this regard has not been correctly appreciated. 3. Accordingly, Exts. P3 and P5 are set aside and the first respondent shall consider the petitioner's application for W.P.(C). No. 33917 OF 2008 2 variation after a decision is taken on the petitioner's application for renewal on Ext.P1. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (V.GIRI) JUDGE kkms/