IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2008 / 15TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 19331 of 2008(B) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- M.S.BILU, SREE VALSAM, ELATHOOR KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.MANHU SRI.M.A.FAYAZ RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY VATAKARA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY VATAKARA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).19331/2008-B APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED FOR VARIATION. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ROUTE SKETCH. EXT.P3: COPY OF UNDERTAKING SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF 1ST RESPONDENT'S ORDER DATED 11/03/2008. EXT.P5: COPY OF ORDER IN M.V.A.R.P. NO.142 OF 2008. EXT.P6: COPY OF ORDER GRANTING LSOS FACILITY TO STAGE CARRIAGE NO.KL.18A.7557. EXT.P7: COPY OF ORDER GRANTING LSOS FACILITY TO STAGE CARRIAGE NO.KL.11.M.9067. EXT.P8: COPY OF ORDER GRANTING LSOS FACILITY TO STAGE CARRIAGE NO.KL.11.L.3177. EXT.P9: COPY OF ORDER IN I.A. NO.4812 OF 2008. EXT.P10: COPY OF 2ND RESPONDENT'S ORDER DATED 12/05/2008. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN M.V.A.R.P NO.143 OF 2008 DATED 02/07/2008. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN M.V.A.R.P. NO.144 OF 2008 DATED 28/06/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL // TRUE COPY // Rs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) 19331 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: AUGUST 6, 2008 JUDGMENT The challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P4 and P5. 2. Petitioner submits that he is holding a regular permit on the route Kuttiyadi - Kozhikode having a route length of 71 kms. He applied for conversion of his ordinary service as LSOS. In the application he also sought extension of the route and also change of starting and termin. The requests made were considered by the RTA and by Ext.P4 proceedings, extension from Kuttiyadi to Kumbalachola was granted retaining the timings at the rate of 2.5 minutes/Km. subject to settlement of timings. Similarly, change of starting and termini consequent to the variation was also granted. However, in so far as his request for conversion of ordinary service as LSOS was WP(C) 19331 of 2008 2 concerned, that was declined by the RTA. 3. Against Ext.P4, petitioner filed a revision before the Tribunal and the Tribunal rejected the revision by Ext.P5. In this writ petition, petitioner submits that he is also aggrieved by the fixation of 2.5 minutes/Km. in Ext.P4. This aspect of the matter is not seen urged before the Tribunal while considering the revision filed against Ext.P4 and therefore that issue has become final and cannot be agitated now. 4. What remains is the request of the petitioner for conversion as LSOS. True, the rejection of his request is based on the report of the Enquiry Officer that it is not desirable to grant the conversion. However, learned counsel for the petitioner refers me to Exts.P11 and P12. These are two orders of STAT in revisions filed against the proceedings of the RTA meeting held on 11.3.2008, on which date Ext.P4 proceedings were also issued. Ext.P11 deals with an application for conversion, in respect of the WP(C) 19331 of 2008 3 route Kuttiyadi - Perambra - Kozhikode and Ext.P12 deals with a request for conversion in respect of the route Pathiripatta - Kuttiyadi - Kozhikode Medical College. In Ext.P11 the Tribunal set aside the order of the RTA rejecting the request and remanded the case for fresh consideration taking into account the submission made that similar requests have been granted in respect of other services. On identical reasoning Ext.P12 was also remanded. 5. On parity of reasoning, I see no justification to decline the prayer of the petitioner for a reconsideration of his application also by the RTA. In any case the fact remains that the applications made by the petitioner and the parties to Exts.P11 and P12 concerning almost the same route were considered and rejected by the RTA on 11.3.2008 and those two matters are remanded for reconsideration. Therefore, in my view, justice demands that the petitioner's request also needs to be reconsidered WP(C) 19331 of 2008 4 in the light of the observations made in Exts.P11 and P12. 6. In order to enable the RTA to reconsider the matter as above, Exts.P4 and P5 in so far as it rejects the petitioner's request for conversion of ordinary service as LSOS are set aside and it is directed that the 1st respondent shall reconsider the petitioner's application for conversion of his ordinary service permit into an LSOS. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate, within two months of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE mt/-