IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2010 / 27TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 37518 of 2008(N) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ THE SECRETARY, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT MOTORS TRANSPORT WORKERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.T 763, AMCOS, ALAMCODE, ATTINGAL. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR SMT.G.CHITRA RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/6/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 37518 of 2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR VARIATION OF PERMIT DATED NIL. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH PRODUCED ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 18/4/2008. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BFORE THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AS MVAA NO.365/2008 DATED 21/6/2008. EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN M.V.A.A NO.365/2008 DATED 30/8/2008. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE scm K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.37518 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner holds a regular permit to operate stage carriage service on the route Attukal- Parottukonam Sivan Kovil junction. He applied to the Regional Transport Authority for variation of the permit, as per Exhibit P1 application. The variation requested for was to extend the route up to Maruthoor Kadavu, so that the vehicle can operate from Maruthoor Kadavu- to Attukal-Parottukonam Sivan Kovil junction. A deviation was also requested for. 2. Exhibit P1 application was considered in the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority held on 18/4/2008. The decision rendered reads as follows: " The proposed varying areas are well served KSRTC and other private services. Also the proposed curtailment will adversely effect the passengers of that area. As per KMV Rule 145(R) RTA can allow the variation or extension only when i) New circumstances have arisen since the route was decided, such as the construction of bridge or road; W.P(C).No.37518/2008 2 ii) The transport requirements of the area to be served were overlooked or have changed. This is also not established. Hence rejected." 3. Aggrieved by the decision of the Regional Transport Authority, the petitioner filed an appeal as M.V.A.A. No.365 of 2008 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal by the judgment dated 30/08/2008, which is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 4. Before the Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner did not press the request for deviation of the route. However, the request for variation and extension was pressed. The Appellate Tribunal held that taking into account the convenience of the travelling public, the rejection of the request for variation was justified. It was also found by the authorities below that the proposed varying areas are well served by KSRTC and other private services. 5. Rule 145(6) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules,1989 provides that; The Transport Authorities shall, in deciding whether to vary or extend a route, have regard to the following matters, W.P(C).No.37518/2008 3 namely:- (i)new circumstances have arisen since the route was decided, such as the construction of a bridge, or road: (ii)the transport requirements of the area to be served were overlooked or have changed. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that clauses (i) and (ii) of Sub-rule (6) are illustrative and that for variation or extension, other circumstances also could be taken note of. The counsel relied on the judgment in W.A. No.152 of 1992 in support of the contention. 7. It is not established by the petitioner that clauses (i) and (ii) of Sub-rule (6) of Rule 145 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules are made out in the case on hand. No other circumstance justifying the variation or extension of the route is also established in the case. On the other hand, the clear finding by the Regional Transport Authority is that the proposed varying areas are well served by K.S.R.T.C and other private services. The Appellate Tribunal rightly held that taking into account the convenience of the travelling public, it is not necessary or expedient to vary or extend the route as sought for by the petitioner. W.P(C).No.37518/2008 4 8. The findings rendered by the authorities below are findings of fact. No circumstance is made out to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact, which normally would not be interfered with in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I am of the view that the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority and the judgment rendered by the Appellate Tribunal are legal and proper. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm