IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 30203 of 2009(U) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. BABU TAPALPARAMBU, VELLAKKINAR WARD ALAPPUZHA. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT VLAYIL VEEDU THONDANKULANGARA, AVALOOKUNNU.P.O., ALAPPUZHA. 2. PRASANTH, S/O. PRAKASAN, MUTTATH PARAMBA, THIRUVMAMBADI.P.O ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. MR.S.SANAL KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA. 2. STAT OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ALAPPUZHA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. DILIP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 30203 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 6th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are owners-cum-drivers of Autorikshaws. They have obtained permits for plying autorikshaws. One of the conditions in the permits is that the petitioners shall not park or pick-up passengers from Alappuzha town. Presently the petitioners are plying their vehicle at Paravoor outside the city limits, but they are residents of Alappuzha town. Therefore, after the days work is over, they have to go back to their home in Alappuzha town and again take the autorikshaw, in the morning, to Paravoor. According to them that would be waste of fuel and money. Therefore, they filed applications for variation of the permit conditions allowing them to ply and park in the city limits. The application submitted by the first petitioner was rejected by Ext.P9. The same is challenged in this Writ Petition. When it was pointed out to the learned counsel of the petitioner that against Ext.P9, there is a remedy by way of appeal before the State Transport Appalate Tribunal as provided in Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the counsel would point out that Section 89 does not provide for an appeal against rejection of application for variation, but only against 2 variation of the conditions of the permit. I am of opinion that grant of variation of condition in Section 89 includes rejection of application for variation of conditions also. Therefore, an appeal would lie under Section 89 against orders rejecting application for variation. Therefore without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge Ext.P9 in an appeal before the Tribunal this Writ Petition is dismissed. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE NL