IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 4TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 11980 of 2005(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.K.KUNHIKANNAN, ANGAKKALLIL HOUSE, KAYANNA, PERAMBRA. BY ADV. SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI (SR.) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY VATAKARA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, VATAKARA. BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 11980/05 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 - ROUGH SKETCH OF THE ROUTE. EXT.P2 - PHOTO COPY OF APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF THE PERMIT, SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, VATAKARA ON 10.2.2003. EXT.P3 - PHOTO COPY OF DECISION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 10.2.2003 IN ITEM NO.73 COMMUNICATED TO THE PETITIONER VIDE ENDT.NO.C4/1019/03 DB. EXT.P4 - PHOTO COPY OF ORDER OF THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM DATED 3.9.2004 IN MVARP NO.117/2003. EXT.P5 - PHOTO COPY OF DECISION DATED 31.1.2005 IN ITEM NO.29 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 - PHOTO COPY OF DECISION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN ITEM NO.20 DATED 31.1.2005. EXT.P7 - PHOTO COPY OF DECISION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN ITEM NO.42 DATED 31.1.2005. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 11980 OF 2005-A ----------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The petitioner was having a regular permit on the route Narinada – Kozhikode. He wanted a modification of that route by curtailing the portion touching Kolothvayal and instead to pass through Kalangali from Narinada to Koorachundu. He also wanted an extension of that permit from Narinada to Perambra Estate, via Chakkittapara, Peruvamuzhi and Muthukad. The petitioner also applied for variation of his permit as L.S.O.S, instead of Ordinary Service. Both these prayers were considered and rejected by the R.T.A., by Ext.P3 proceedings dated 10.2.2003. The variation of the route by curtailing a portion and extending the same to another area was rejected on the ground that the total variation exceeds 24 Kms. The prayer for conversion as L.S.O.S was rejected on the ground that the travelling public will be affected by the reduction of the number of stops. The petitioner filed revision against that order. The S.T.A.T., by Ext.P4 order dismissed the revision. Before the appellate authority, the WPC 11980/05 2 petitioner contended that he filed a petition on 10.2.2003, on the date of consideration of his application by the R.T.A., agreeing to limit the extended portion of the route to 24 Kms., so that it will not be hit by the embargo under Section 80(3)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal was not impressed by the claim of the petitioner that his application for curtailment of the extension filed on the date of consideration should have been considered. The Tribunal also upheld the view of the R.T.A that the travelling public will suffer by the introduction of the Limited Stop Service in the place of Ordinary Service. This writ petition was filed, challenging Ext.P3 order of the R.T.A and Ext.P4 order of the appellate authority. 2. If the extension sought exceeds 24 Kms., there is nothing wrong with the decision of the R.T.A in rejecting the application on that ground. The petitioner claims, he had submitted another application on 10.2.2003, agreeing to limit the extension sought within 24 Kms. If the said application is pending, the petitioner may pursue that or else he may file a fresh application for variation, limiting the variation sought to be within 24 Kms. The findings of the R.T.A and WPC 11980/05 3 S.T.A.T that conversion of the service as L.S.O.S will affect the travelling public, cannot be said to be irrational or contrary to law. But, the petitioner points out that all other services on the route have now been converted. Since five years have already elapsed after the decision on the application of the petitioner, he can attempt an application for conversion of his service as L.S.O.S., afresh. In that event, the R.T.A shall consider the same, taking into account the changed circumstances. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. 26th September, 2008. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. Nm/