IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2008 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 9111 of 2008(I) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------- T.ABOOBACKER, THORAPPA HOUSE, P.O.CHATHANGOTTUPURAM, WANDUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.V. MANOJ KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.9111/2008-I: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FORM PVA DTD. 03/11/2006. EXT.P.2: ROUGH SKETCH OF THE ROUTE. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE R.1. DTD. 24/01/2007. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF JUDGMENT OF THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN M.V.A.A. NO. 133/2007 DTD. 17/09/2007. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE R.1. DTD. 27/12/2007. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.9111/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is holding a regular permit on the route Chathangottupuram - Edakkara - Marutha, touching Nambooripotti. While so, he submitted Ext.P1, an application for variation of the permit. By this application, petitioner sought extension of the route from Edakkara to Poovathipoil and also additional trips from Edakkara to Karulai, avoiding trips to Edakkara to Narokavu. By Ext.P3, the request made by the petitioner was rejected by the RTA on the ground that, avoiding the trips from Edakkara to Narokavu will adversely affect the general public. Petitioner carried the matter in appeal, which was disposed of by STAT in Ext.P4 judgment. By this judgment, STAT allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the RTA and directed to grant the variation sought for by the 2 petitioner, if the request is in order in other respects. 2. The matter was accordingly, reconsidered by the RTA in its meeting held on 26.12.2007 and the RTA rejected the application in its entirety, on the ground that the variation from Edakkara to Nellikuth having a distance of 4 Kms is overlapping the notified sector Kozhikkode- Vazhikkadavu, as it was included in the notification dated 9.5.2007. It is impugning Ext.P5, this writ petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the notification dated 9.5.2007 is irrelevant in so far as his case is concerned, as his entitlement has to be determined with reference to the date on which RTA has considered the first application, dated 24.1.2007. According to him, if it is considered on that basis, the question of overlapping does not arise. It is also contended that, when the STAT remanded the matter directing grant of variation, what is to be done by the RTA is only the ministerial act of implementing the direction and therefore 3 the RTA could not have rejected the application in toto, as is now done by the impugned proceedings. 4. The learned Government Pleader, relying on Ext.P4, the judgment rendered by the Tribunal, submits that, while remanding the matter, the Tribunal was cautious enough to add a rider that, the request of the petitioner shall be, in order in all other respects. According to him, in view of the aforesaid rider, the RTA is entitled to examine the merits of the claim raised by the petitioner. It is submitted that by the time the matter was reconsidered, notification dated 9.5.2007 was already issued and therefore, the petitioner's entitlement was dependent upon the terms of the notification. 5. As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, once the STAT has remanded the matter, the RTA should have, without any further enquiry, granted the permit as directed, I feel that the contention of the Government Pleader has some force. The STAT while remanding the matter, included a rider that, the request 4 should be in order in all other respects. If that be so, the RTA had the freedom to examine the merits of the request made by the petitioner. Therefore, I am not prepared to accept the contention of the petitioner in its entirety. 6. However, the fact remains that the reason assigned by the RTA for rejecting Ext.P1 application in its entirety is the inclusion of a portion of the route at Sl.No.27 of the Notification, dated 9.5.2007. The objectionable portion, according to the RTA is the portion from Edakkara to Nellikunnu junction, having a distance of 4 kms. A perusal of Ext.P2 sketch produced by the petitioner shows that even if this objection assigned by the RTA is accepted at its face value, this will have effect only the extension sought for by the petitioner, between Edakkara to Poovathipoil, which covers the aforesaid objectionable sector also. 7. As already noticed, the application made by the petitioner was not only for extension to the aforesaid sector but also was for additional trips between Edakkara and Karulai. Therefore, the objection now relied on by the RTA 5 in Ext.P5 cannot hold good, as far as the petitioner's request for extension sought for by him is concerned. To that extent Ext.P5 order of the RTA cannot be sustained and is to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the RTA shall grant additional trips sought for by the petitioner in the sector as applied for by him in Ext.P1. Orders shall be passed, at any rate, within 8 weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. 6