IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2011 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 32308 of 2005(U) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- LALU MATHEW, PARAPARAMBIL, S.N.PURAM P.O., PAMPADY, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM. R1 & 2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.V.T.K.MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs WP(C).No. 32308/2005(U) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE VARIATION APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 07/07/2004. P2: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 30/11/2004. P3: COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM AS MVAA. NO.340/2005 FILED BEFORE THE S.T.A.T., ERNAKULAM DATED 26/05/2005. P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE S.T.A.T., ERNAKULAM IN MVAA.NO.340/2005 DATED 13/07/2005. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE svs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ................................................. W.P(C) NO.32308 OF 2005 ......................................................................... Dated this the 8th March, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is holding a regular permit on the route Changanacherry – Ernakulam Kaloor Bus Stand. The petitioner submitted Ext.P1 application for variation of conditions of permit so as to operate the service as S.N.Puram to Ernakulam Kaloor Bus Stand, the more details of the route may not be relevant for this judgment. The distance sought to be curtailed from Kottayam to Changanacherry is 21 Kms and the extension sought from Kottayam to S.N.Puram is 21 Kms. The 1st respondent rejected the application by Ext.P2 proceedings on the ground that variation exceeds 24 Kms and that the curtailment will adversely affect the traveling public. On these grounds, the request was rejected under Section 80(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Aggrieved by this order, petitioner filed M.V.A.A.NO.340/2005 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam. By Ext.P4 judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the application. The reasons assigned by the Tribunal reads as follows:- W.P(C) NO.32308 OF 2005 2 “5. The point:- The field officers report with route map is there in the RTA file. It shows that for the variation Kottayam – Changanacherry sector having a distance of 19 k.m has to be curtailed and sector Kottayam – S.N.Puram with distance of 21 k.m has to be added. Hence total distance of variation is 40km. The extension is sought from middle point. As it is from middle point to and for distance has to be calculated. Hence the addition taken itself will result in a variation 38 k.m too. As section 80 variation shall not exceed 24 k.m. Hence by no stretch of imagination the application for variation would be sustainable.” 2. Thus, according to the Tribunal, the variation and addition sought for, exceeds 24 k.m and therefore, it was impermissible. It is challenging these proceedings the writ petition is filed. 3. Reading of Ext.P4 itself show that the variation is having a distance of 19 kms and the addition is having a distance of 21 kms. Relying on this factual position, the Counsel for the petitioner submits that the variation and addition are to be taken separately and the application has to be decided accordingly. The counsel for the petitioner also applied a judgment of this Court in Yusuf v. R.T.A, Ernakulam 2009 (4) KLT 426. In the light of the above, the learned counsel for the petitioner W.P(C) NO.32308 OF 2005 3 submits that even if the variation and extension taken together, exceeds 24 kms, there is no impediment in granting the request. 4. Having gone through the statutory provision and the judgment relied on, I am inclined to agree with the counsel for the petitioner. This view has been taken in the above judgment on the basis that, the limit of 24 kms prescribed in the Section 80(3) will apply individually to variation and extension. If so appreciated, it can be seen that the request made by the petitioner is perfectly within the permissible limits. Therefore, Ext.P2 and P4 cannot be sustained and are quashed. 5. The 1st respondent is directed to pass consequential orders on Ext.P1 application made by the petitioner. This the 1st respondent shall do as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is allowed as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. dmb