IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2008 / 16TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 19597 of 2008(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SONA SASANKAN, SOUMYAM, 4, VALIYA UDAYESWARAM, KADAKAMPALLI, ANAYARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY. 3. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SHRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC FOR R3 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, KSRTC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.19597/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT 7.6.2007. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER SUBMITTED ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION DT 7.6.2007. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD.19.9.2007. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM AS MVAA NO.862/2007 FILED BEFORE THE S.T.A.T., ERNAKULAM DT.15.12.2007. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE S.T.A.T., ERNAKULAM IN MVAA NO.862/2007 DT 4.3.2008. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 19597 OF 2008 G ==================== Dated this the 7th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a stage carriage operator in the route Vazhayila- Maruthoorkadavu. He submitted Exts. P1 and P2 seeking extension of the route covering the sector Vazhayila to Azhikode having distance of 4.2 kms. It is stated that a report of the Enquiry Officer was obtained by the RTA, which recommended that extension was in the interest of the travelling public. Petitioner submits that despite this, by Ext.P3, RTA rejected the application stating that the route is well served by KSRTC and that no new circumstances have arisen under Rule 145(6) of th Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. 2. Against Ext.P3 petitioner filed Ext.P4 appeal and that was also dismissed by Ext.P5 judgment of the Tribunal. Tribunal has stated that the KSRTC which had objected to the grant of extension was not impleaded in the proceedings before the Tribunal. It is also stated that the variation is through a notified route and that there is no change of circumstances. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner mainly relies on the report of the Enquiry Officer and it is also stated that the finding of the WPC 19597/08 :2 : STAT that it is a notified route is incorrect for the reason that private vehicles are also permitted to operate following the notification dated 24th November 1994. In so far as the absence of change of circumstances is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that circumstances pointed out in Rule 145(6) are only illustrative and that there can be other reasons justifying the request. 4. If as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, an Enquiry Officer's report recommend the grant of variation sought for, there must be some valid reason for the RTA or the STAT to overlook the same. In this case neither in Ext.P3 nor in Ext.P5 is there any reason given for ignoring such a report. I am also inclined to agree with the counsel for the petitioner that following the notification dated 24/11/1994, the route has ceased to be an exclusive one reserved for KSRTC. For these reasons, I am satisfied that the matter needs to be reconsidered by the RTA. 5. Accordingly, quashing Exts. P3 and P5, I direct that Exts. P1 and P2 shall be reconsidered by the RTA with notice to KSRTC and others. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp