IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 32514 of 2007(U) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- E.K.ABDUL KHADER, ERUPPAKKOTTIL HOUSE, PERINGALA, PERINGALA P.O. ERNAKULAM DT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOCHI-682 030. 2. THE SECRETARY, R.T.A. ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 030. 3. MADANAN.T.K., MAYAMPILLI THUNDI HOUSE, PONNURUNNI, VYTTILA, KOCHI-682 019. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.32514 OF 2007-U APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT AT ITS MEETING HELD ON 19.7.2007 IN ITEM SUPPLEMENTARY NO.4. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.11.2007 IN W.P.C.21281 OF 2007(H) IN THE CASE OF MURUGAPPASWAMY VS. R.T.A. PALAKKAD & ORS. / TRUE COPY / HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.32514 of 2007 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 26th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the registered owner of a stage carriage operating Vyttila - Vyttila via. Palarivattom circular route. The third respondent is the registered owner of KL-7/AQ 8237 having a regular permit to operate on the route Panangad – Aluva via. Boat Jetty. He submitted an application for variation of the permit. Petitioner submitted that the variation involves curtailment of the trips as well as providing additional trips via. Palarivattom By-pass, Vyttila and Padma. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that variation of conditions of regular permit is covered by Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act ('the Act' for short) and sub- section (3) of Section 80 of the Act deals with variation of regular permit. Ext.P1 is the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority granting variation of the regular permit. It is a single line order. Ext.P1 does not disclose the reasons or circumstances which weighed the Regional Transport Authority to grant variation. Section 80(3) of the Act stipulates certain conditions for granting variation of the permit. For variation or extension, a subjective satisfaction has to be entered into by W.P.(C) No.32514 of 2007 2 the authority before granting the permit. A reading of Section 80(3) of the Act read with Rule 145(6) of the Motor Vehicles Rules postulates subjective satisfaction of the Regional Transport Authority for granting variation of the regular permit. I agree with the learned counsel's submission that Ext.P1 does not reflect the subjective satisfaction, if any, entered by the authority. The learned counsel also cited a decision of this Court reported in Prasad v. R.T.A. (2005 (2) KLT 227) in which it is held that the order should disclose reasons. Otherwise, it is an illegal order which is liable to be interfered with. 3. Learned Government Pleader pointed out that Ext.P1 is an appealable order before the State Transport Appellate Authority. The grievance of the petitioner can be examined by the appellate authority constituted for such purposes. Instead of approaching the appellate authority the petitioner challenged Ext.P1 before this Court. When a statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, this Court may not be justified in going into the merits of the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Learned counsel for the third respondent in whose favour Ext.P1 order was passed submitted that the W.P.(C) No.32514 of 2007 3 existing operators have no right to challenge the grant of permit or variation of permit as held by a Full Bench of this Court in the decision reported in Binu Chacko v. R.T.A. (2006 (2) KLT 172). 5. After hearing the parties, I am of the view that an opportunity shall be given to the petitioner to approach the statutory appellate Tribunal. 6. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the statutory appellate Tribunal to consider and pass orders in accordance with law if an appeal is filed by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today. Since the writ petition was entertained and kept pending for all this period, the appellate Tribunal need not go into the question of delay in filing the appeal. The matter shall be decided by the Tribunal within a period of three months from the date of filing of the appeal. HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE vns