IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2008 / 17TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 684 of 2008(F) ------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------ V.V.SREEDHARAN, AGED 54, MANAGING PARTNER, CHIRANJANA TRAVELS, CHITTATTUKARA P.O., VADAKKEKARA, NORTH PARUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON SRI.M.JITHESH MENON RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 684 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: January 7, 2008 JUDGMENT Ext.P4 decision of the RTA confirmed in Ext.P6 is under challenge. Curtailment of permit from Koonammavu to Kunnupuram via Pathalam was rejected for the reason that it will adversely affect the convenience of the passengers. This decision of the RTA has been confirmed in Ext.P6 judgment rendered by the STAT in MVAA 571/2007 filed by the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that while inconvenience of passengers has been found against the petitioner for rejecting the application for curtailment, that part of Ext.P2 report of the enquiry officer suggesting that the variation proposed through the Varappuzha bridge is beneficial to the passengers, has been ignored. 3. It is true that in Ext.P4 decision of the RTA, only the inconvenience on curtailment has been referred to. But when the STAT considered the appeal of the petitioner, it has considered both WP(C) 684/2008 Page numbers parts of the enquiry report. A reading of paragraph 3 of the judgment would show that there is no substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner. In view of the concurrent finding arrived at by the RTA and the STAT, I see no reason to disagree with the finding. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-