IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 22ND MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 35230 of 2007(R) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- T.P.MOIDEENKUTTY, S/O.SHRI.MOIDEENKUTTY, MANAGING PARTNER, WESTAR CLASSIC, PULAMANTHOLE P.O., PERINTALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.35230/2007-R: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE R.1. AT ITS MEETING HELD ON 24/01/2007 IN ITEM NO.50. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN M.V.A.A. NO. 135/07, DT. 20/04/2007. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE R.1. AT ITS MEETING HELD ON 07/08/2007 IN ITEM NO. 32. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 35230 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated: February 11, 2008 JUDGMENT Ext.P1 is an order passed by the 1st respondent rejecting the application of the petitioner for replacement of the vehicle. The rejection was on the ground that the reduction of seating capacity above 25% will adversely affect the travelling public. Against Ext.P1 it is seen that the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Tribunal which allowed the appeal by Ext.P2 judgment. In Ext.P2 judgment it has been said that under Rule 174, if the material difference exceeds 25%, the application will be considered as one for fresh permit. It is also held that if there is no provision to disallow replacement on account of inconvenience to the travelling public unlike in the case of variation of permit. When the matter went back to the RTA for passing consequential orders, the RTA passed Ext.P3 once again rejecting the application. It is challenging Ext.P3 this writ petition has been filed. 2. In the previous paragraph I have already stated the reasons for the RTA's rejection of the petitioner's application in the first WP(C) 35230/07 Page numbers instance and the reasons assigned by the Tribunal for reversing the same. In Ext.P3 what is stated again by the 1st respondent is that the material difference is in excess of 25% which has already been considered by the Tribunal in Ext.P2. Therefore I cannot uphold Ext.P3 as it is a reiteration of Ext.P1 which was already set aside. 3. Hence Ext.P3 will stand set aside and the 1st respondent shall take up the matter afresh, reconsider the same and pass a fresh order fully implementing Ext.P2 judgment of the Tribunal. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-