IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2009 / 19TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 437 of 2009(B) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. NATIONAL CITIZEN FORUM, KOTHALA EAST, NATIONAL READING ROOM BUILDING, KOTHALA P.O. KOTTAYAM- 686 502, (REGN.NO.K/397/06),REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, V.C.ABRAHAM. 2. V.C.ABRAHAM, VATTAKUNNEL HOUSE, KOTHALA P.O. PAMPADY, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. MR.A. INEES RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. SRI.JOBIN GEO, S/O. K.C.VARKEY, MOONGAMACKAL HOUSE, KANJIRAMATTOM P.O. KOTTAYAM. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.M.A. ASIF. R2 BY ADV. MR.P.DEEPAK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 437/2009-B APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 09/03/2007. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY KOKKAYAR POWRA SAMITHY DATED 07/03/2007. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY D.C.U.F., MUNDAKKAYAM DATED 09/03/2007. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY AKHILA KERALA CHERAMUR SANTHAM DATED 07/03/2007. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY ADHYAPAKA-RAKSHAKARTHRU SANKHADANA TECHNICAL HIGH SCHOOL, PAMPADY DATED 07/03/2007. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER REPORT IN MANGALAM DAILY DATED 09/03/2007. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER REPORT IN KERALA KOWMUDI DATED 09/03/2007. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 09/03/2007 IN ITEM NO.62. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE S.T.A.T. IN MVAA NO.488/07 DATED 26/11/2007. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE INFORMATION REPORT ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, R.T.A., KOTTAYAM DATED 27/11/2007. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 20/01/2008. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 07/02/2008 IN ITEM NO.63. EXT.P13: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN M.V.A.A. NO.357/2008 DATED 04/10/2008. EXT.P14(A): COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF ANNUAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER , ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) KOTTAYAM DATED 21/11/2007. EXT.P14(B): COPY OF THE ANNUAL REPORT DATED 31/10/2007 AND ITS ACCOUNTS. EXT.P14(C): COPY OF THE LIST OF OFFICE BEARERS OF THE ASSOCIATION FROM 2007 SHOWING THE 2ND PETITIONER AS SECRETARY. EXT.P15(A): COPY OF THE COMPLAINT REGARDING STREET LIGHTING FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 30/10/2007. WP(C) NO. 437/2009-B EXT.P15(B): COPY OF THE COMPLAINT REGARDING STOPPAGE OF DRINKING WATER, FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 20/02/2008. EXT.P15(C): COPY OF THE COMPLAINT REGARDING NON-STOPPAGE OF KSRTC BUSES FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 24/10/2007. EXT.P15(D): COPY OF THE ACK. RECEIPT REGARDING COMPLAINT AGAINST BOARDING OF PASSENGERS, DATED 11/10/2007. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R2(a): COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT ON THE ROUTE ELAMKAD-KOTTAYAM. EXT.R2(b): COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 02/12/2008 IN WP(C) NO. 35528 OF 2008. EXT.R2(c): COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 10/03/2008. EXT.R2(d): COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, KOTTAYAM DATED 12/01/2009. EXT.R2(e): COPY OF THE BYE-LAWS OF THE 1ST PETITIONER ASSOCIATION. EXT.R2(f): COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A. NO. 1996 OF 2007. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. V.GIRI, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = W.P.(C). No. 437 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th day of August 2009. JUDGMENT The first petitioner claims to be a registered Association which is working for the welfare of the citizens in and around Pampady, Vazhoor, Kooropada and Pallickathode Panchayaths. Second petitioner is a resident in Pampady Panchayath. 2. Second respondent is a stage carriage operator, operating on the route Elamkad-Kottayam. The original distance of the route was 65 Kms. Second respondent made a requisition for an extension of the service from Elamkad to Elamkad Top as a variation and also made request for conversion of the service into limited stop ordinary service. By Ext.P8, the Regional Transport Authority granted the extension subject to settlement of timings. But the plea for the conversion into limited stop ordinary service was not considered and in fact treated as rejected. 3. Second respondent preferred an appeal as M.V.A.A.No.488/07 by Ext.P9. The matter was remanded back to W.P.(C). No. 437 OF 2009 2 the R.T.A. The Tribunal also found the extension as eligible to be granted and directed the R.T.A. to endorse the extension subject to settlement of timings. The plea for conversion was directed to be reconsidered. 4. By Ext.P12, the R.T.A. reconsidered the question of conversion and rejected the same, essentially citing two reasons. Firstly, that on conversion, the route will pass through ghat section, wherein the maximum speed limit of 35 Kms./Hr. will be incompatible with limited stop ordinary service. The second reason cited was that the public would be inconvenience by the conversion into a limited stop ordinary service and the consequent reduction of the number of stops as is evidenced by ExtP10. The number of stops of the service originally was 49 and on conversion, it has been reduced to 21. 5. Second respondent preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The appeal was allowed as per Ext.P13 judgment, directing that the conversion sought for should be allowed. Ext.P13 has been challenged in this writ petition. W.P.(C). No. 437 OF 2009 3 6. It seems that in the meanwhile, the operator had approached this Court in W.P.(C).No.35528 of 2008 and by R2(b) judgment, this Court had directed that further steps be taken pursuant to Ext.P13 judgment. 7. But the petitioners herein were not parties to R2(b) judgment. 8. Ext.P13 has been challenged in this writ petition on more than one ground. Firstly, it is contended that if there is a rejection of plea for conversion, the order as such cannot be appealed before the Tribunal. It is next contended that the public would be affected by the conversion and therefore, atlease some of the objectors, who had opposed the conversion before the R.T.A. should have been made parties in the Appeal against Ext.P12. 9. It is contended on behalf of the second respondent that the public are not inconvenienced by the conversion into limited stop ordinary service. The present petitioners are only a facade for a rival stage carriage operator, operating in the same route. W.P.(C). No. 437 OF 2009 4 10. I heard Mr. Inees, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and Mr. P.Deepak, learned Counsel for the second respondent. 11. I do not find it necessary to decide the question as to whether an appeal is maintainable against an order rejecting a plea for conversion of an ordinary service into limited stop ordinary service in this writ petition. But I am of the view that since one of the grounds on which the plea for conversion is rejected relates to the convenience of the public, an appeal against Ext.P12 could have been maintained only with one or more objectors in the party array. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners shall been impleaded as additional respondents in the appeal against Ext.P12 and the matter should be considered afresh. I clear that this will be without prejudice to the right of the second respondent to challenge the locus standi of the petitioners herein as well. 12. In these circumstances, Ext.P13 is set aside and M.V.A.A.357/2008 shall stand restored to file. The petitioners herein shall be impleaded as additional respondents 3 and 4. W.P.(C). No. 437 OF 2009 5 The appeal shall be reconsidered and, orders shall be passed by the Tribunal after hearing the parties within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (V.GIRI) JUDGE kkms/