IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2008 / 1ST MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 29507 of 2007(K) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------------- VASANTHA, LAKSHMI SADANAM, VILAKKAD P.O., IRITTY. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KANNUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KANNUR. 3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, VADAGARA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BENJAMIN PAUL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/01/2008, THE COURT ON 21/01/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.29507/2007 K APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PERMIT DTD. 11/04/2001. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD.22/07/2006. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF REVISION DTD.10/01/2007 AS M.V.A.R.P.NO.21/2007. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 20/03/2007 IN M.V.A.R.P.NO.21/2007. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 22/12/2006 IN M.V.A.R.P.NO.545/2006. EXT.P6: COPY OF SUCH ORDER PASSED IN M.V.A.R.P.NO.382/2006 DTD. 19/10/2006. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 30/03/2007 IN WPC.NO.32541/06. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 29507 OF 2007 K = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 21st January, 2008 J U D G M E N T The prayer in this writ petition is to quash Ext. P4 order of the S.T.A.T., and to direct respondents 1 and 2 to grant renewal concurrence for the permit on the route Manakayi-Guruvayur for the vehicle KL-08/AC 3326. Petitioner submits that her vehicle was operating on the route Manakayi-Guruvayur on the strength of Ext. P1 regular permit. When it became due for renewal petitioner applied to the 3rd respondent which sought concurrence from the 1st respondent as also the R.T.A., Thrissur. The 1st respondent declined concurrence by Ext. P2 and the petitioner challenged Ext. P2 by filing M.V.A.R.P. No. 21 of 2007. The revision petition was rejected by the STAT by Ext. P4 order finding that the distance is beyond 140 kms. and that as per Rule 2(oa) the route distance of L.S.O.S. shall not exceed 140 kms. 2. Petitioner submits that when the R.T.A., Thrissur whose concurrence was also sought for by the primary R.T.A., concurrence W.P.(C) No. 29507 OF 2007 -2- was declined in respect of the very same application for renewal, and that the decision of the R.T.A., Thrissur, was challenged in M.V.A.R.P. No. 545 of 2006 before the STAT. The STAT by Ext. P5 order allowed the revision, taking the view that the question whether route length exceeds 140 kms. is a matter to be considered by the primary authority while granting renewal and if it was operating as L.S.O.S., there is no ground to limit concurrence to operate as ordinary service. On this basis petitioner submits that Ext. P4 passed by the STAT is diametrically opposite to its own order, Ext. P5. Petitioner also refers to Exts. P6 and P7 in which according to the petitioner, the STAT and this Court has also taken similar views. 3. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and also for the respondents. 4. It is true that in Ext. P4, the only reason given by the STAT is that as per Rule 2(oa) the route distance of L.S.O.S. shall not exceed 140 kms. However, it is noticed that in respect of the very same route when concurrence was declined by the RTA, Thrissur on identical reasons, the revision filed against the said order was allowed by the STAT in Ext. P5 order. Similar view has been taken by the STAT in Ext. P6 common order passed by it. If that be so, W.P.(C) No. 29507 OF 2007 -3- petitioner is justified in contending that the view taken by the STAT in Ext. P4 is contradictory to its view in Exts. P5 and P6. 5. However, the fact remains that the point that the issue is covered in favour of the petitioner by Exts. P5 and P6 has not been brought to the notice of the STAT when it rendered Ext. P4. If as a matter of fact, Exts. P5 and P6 were brought to the notice of the STAT and if the STAT was satisfied that the issue has been decided in favour of the petitioner, I have no reason to think that the STAT would have deliberately taken a view different from what is reflected in Exts. P5 and P6. 6. Therefore, I quash Ext. P4 and direct that the matter shall be reconsidered by the STAT which shall decide the matter taking into account Exts. P5 and P6 orders as well. The decision as above shall be taken by the STAT as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 8 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-