IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2010 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 6974 of 2010(V) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- THOMAS MANI, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. MANI, RESIDING AT MALLAKKATTU HOUSE, POTHENPURAM P.O., PAMPADY, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. MR.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 6974 OF 2010 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th March, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is a stage carriage operator conducting services with the vehicle bearing registration No: KL-05/Y 3609. His route is Pampady-Kottayam. He sought a variation of his route as Alampally-Kottayam via Pampady, Kalachantha, Pallikunnu, Chempankuzhy, Lakshamveedu colony, Manjady, Paruthalamattom, Mundiyakkal, Maliapady, Vettathukavala, Puthuppally, Manganam and Kanjikuzhy. According to the petitioner the existing services on the route are insufficient to service them effectively. There are educational institutions, banks and other public and private establishments on the route. Therefore, the variation according to the petitioner would be highly beneficial to the travelling public also. As per Ext.P5, the request of the petitioner has been granted without curtailment on the ground that counsel for the petitioner had consented to the said order. According to the counsel, he has not made any such concession. Therefore, he seeks invalidation of Ext.P5. 2. Since there is nothing on record to show that the counsel had consented to the passing of Ext.P5, it cannot be said that he WPC 6974/2010 2 had consented. The previous proceedings initiated by the petitioner also do not probabilise the assertion that he had consented. Therefore, Ext.P5 is liable to be set aside. The learned Senior Government Pleader on instructions submits that the authority shall consider Ext.P2 application afresh. 3. In the above circumstances this writ petition is allowed. Ext.P5 is set aside. The respondent is directed to consider the application for variation submitted by the petitioner evidenced herein by Ext.P2 in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 6974/2010 3 K.K.DENESAN & V. RAMKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO: ----------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Dated: