IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 21ST MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 25147 of 2006(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- R.MOHANKUMAR, MANGAT LANE, POONKUNNAM P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV.MR.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, VADAKARA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, VADAKARA. 3. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C., KOZHIKODE. ADV. MR.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C. FOR R3 MR.M.A.ASIF, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.25147/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC NO.22747/2005 DATED 09/08/2005. P2 : COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 24/10/2005. P3 : COPY OF THE REVISION MEMORANDUM AS MVARP NO.21/2006 FILED BEFORE THE STAT, ERNAKULAM DATED 16/01/2006. P4 : COPY OF THE ORDER OF STAT ERNAKULAM IN MVARP NO.21/2006 DATED 04/04/2006. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.25147 of 2006 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 10th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a registered owner of stage carriage bearing Regn.No.KL-8/X-2599. It is stated that the vehicle had a fast passenger permit on the route Kannur-Thrissur. However, subsequently, at the time of renewal, the petitioner's permit was renewed as an ordinary service. As at present, the renewed permit is valid till 04/01/2010, and the distance covered by the permit is 228 Kms. The petitioner submits that in 2005, he applied for variation of the permit to convert into a fast passenger service. That was rejected by the RTA as per Ext.P2, and revision filed as MVARP No.21/06 was also rejected by the Tribunal as per Ext.P4. It is in these circumstances, challenging Exts. P2 and P4, the writ petition is filed. 2. A reading of Ext.P4 shows that the Tribunal has proceeded on the basis that if variation as sought for by the petitioner into a super fast service is allowed, the same will affect the supplementary scheme. Such a reasoning by the Tribunal in my view WP(C) No.25147/2006 -2- is totally unacceptable. The petitioner is already operating in the route in question and all that he seeks is for conversion of the ordinary service into a fast passenger service. Therefore, since the petitioner is an existing operator in the route in question, there is no question of conversion affecting the supplementary scheme. Similarly, the question of causing any detriment to STU also does not arise. It is also to be noticed that the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal is totally different from what was adopted by the RTA in Ext.P2 order declining the petitioner's application. I am satisfied that Ext.P4 order passed by the STAT deserves to be set aside and I do so. STAT is directed to reconsider the matter with notice to the parties as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg