IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 17TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 3530 of 2008(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ RATHEESH KUMAR, KANNAPPASSERY HOUSE, ELAMKUNNAPUZHA, N.PARAVUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 3530 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: February 6, 2008 JUDGMENT By submitting Ext.P3 variation of permit was applied for. That was considered by the RTA and the request was rejected by Ext.P4. Against Ext.P4 revision was filed before the STAT. That also was rejected by Ext.P5. Challenging Exts.P4 and P5 this writ petition has been filed. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner though in Ext.P3 several variations were sought for by the petitioner, only curtailment sought for was considered by the RTA in Ext.P4. On this basis learned counsel seeks to impugn Ext.P4. 3. However, on a reading of Ext.P5, it can be seen that the entire aspects have been considered by the STAT while dismissing the revision petition. Paragraph 2 of the order shows that the report of the enquiry officer available in the RTA's file disclosed that the variations sought for by the petitioner were not in public interest. It is also stated that the enquiry officer had pointed out that the WP(C) 3530/08 Page numbers variation will cause clashes with other services and that the curtailment of the last trip will also adversely affect the travelling public. From this it is obvious that the enquiry officer did not recommend the variation applied for by the petitioner. In view of the factual findings contained in Ext.P5, I do not find any irregularity in Exts.P4 and P5 warranting interference in this writ petition. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-