IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2009 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 16212 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SMT.SINDHU JOJO, AGED 27, W/O. JOJO, PUTHUSSERY HOUSE, THABORE P.O., MUKKANNOOR, ANGAMALI. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON SRI.M.JITHESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM. 3. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.A.ASIF R3 BY ADV.SRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN - SC FOR KSRTC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.16212 of 2009 ------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader and learned standing counsel for the KSRTC. By consent of parties, the writ petition is heard and disposed of. 2. The petitioner, an existing operator on the route Angamali-Mukkannoor-Munnoorppilly- Perumbavoor, sought for a variation of the route initially by seeking permission to operate with an additional trip as also curtailment. The application was rejected. The matter was taken up before the Tribunal. 3. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner gave up his prayer for an additional trip. The Tribunal passed the following order on Ext.P7: “In the result, this appeal is allowed and setting aside the impugned order, the matter is remanded directing the 1st W.P.(C).No.16212 of 2009 :: 2 :: respondent to grant the variation as sought for by the appellant, if the appellant files a modified proposal without insisting the additional trip claimed in the original proposal, within a period of 30 days from the date of this order.” 4. Pursuant to Ext.P7, the petitioner filed filed a modified proposal without insisting on the additional trip. The Regional Transport Authority then proceeded to pass the following order as per Ext.P9: “Heard. Perused the judgment and considered. There is public representation regarding curtailment of the existing route 10.4 km which will adversely affect the existing passengers. Hence variation granted without curtailment subject to settlement of timing and road fitness certificate from PWD Authorities.” 5. Thus, though a variation has been granted, the same was without curtailment and settlement of timings. Ext.P9 has been challenged in this writ petition. W.P.(C).No.16212 of 2009 :: 3 :: 6. The Regional Transport Authority is bound by the orders of the appellate authority. The appellate tribunal has, in Ext.P7, directed the Regional Transport Authority to grant a variation as sought for by the appellant, if the appellant files a modified proposal. It cannot be disputed that the petitioner gave up the additional trip as originally proposed by him. The variation, which therefore came up for consideration before the Regional Transport Authority pursuant to Ext.P7, was only a variation with curtailment. This, the Regional Transport Authority was bound to allow, as long as Ext.P7 stood. In such circumstances, the Regional Transport Authority was not entitled to proceed at variance from the order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. 7. The position has been fortified and a similar view has been taken in Ext.P10. W.P.(C).No.16212 of 2009 :: 4 :: In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P9 is set aside, to the extent to which the Regional Transport Authority has granted variation without curtailment. The Regional Transport Authority shall pass fresh orders in the matter of variation, as sought for by the petitioner and directed in Ext.P7 within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and the varied permit will be issued, subject to settlement of timings. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge