IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2008 / 31ST SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 30893 of 2007(C) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------------- MATHEW K. JOSEPH, AMBALAKADAVIL, KURICHI, S. PURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN-686002. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686002. 3. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C., KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686 001. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.V.MANOJKUMAR – R1 & R2 ADV. SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C. FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.30893/2007 C APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 9/03/2007. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DTD. 13/06/2007 IN M.V.A.A.NO.286/07. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 27/06/2007 IN M.V.A.A. NO.286/07. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.30893/2007 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner made an application for a regular permit on the route Changanacherry-Kottyam. That was rejected by the RTA, by Ext.P1 proceedings, on the ground that the route overlaps the notified route Kottayam-Kottarakkara. Against that order petitioner filed Ext.P2 appeal before the Tribunal, where his contention was that Changanacherry was not an intermediate point to offend the scheme. The STAT considered the matter and dismissed the appeal by Ext.P3 judgment. 2. In Ext.P3 judgment there is no mention about the finding of the RTA, but however the STAT found that the route in question offends the Kottayam-Thiruvalla and Kottayam-Chengannur notified routes. From this it is obvious that, while the RTA rejected the application of the WP(c).NO.30893/2007 2 petitioner on the ground that it offended the Kottayam- Kottarakkara notified route, the STAT rejected the appeal on the ground that the route offends Kottayam-Thiruvalla and Kottayam-Chengannur notified routes. 3. In my view, if the STAT is to conclude against the petitioner on grounds which are different from the grounds found by the RTA, the proper course open to the STAT was to have remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the RTA, so that the petitioner will also get notice of those objections and could have argued the matter before the RTA. Since the STAT has decided the matter in the manner as above I feel that the matter needs to be reconsidered by the RTA. In order to enable the RTA to reconsider the matter I quash Exts.P1 and P3 and direct that the application made by the petitioner shall be reconsidered by the RTA with notice to him and KSRTC. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).NO.30893/2007 3