IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 21ST FEBRUARY 2008 / 2ND PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 10236 of 2007(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ T.K.HUSSAIN, S/O POCKER, MARETTUMMAL HOUSE, VALIYAPARAMBU, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, WAYANAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY AT KALPETTA. 2. SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, WAYANAD, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, KALPETTA. BY G.P.SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO. 10236/07 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- P1: True copy of the permit of the petitioner in respect of the vehicle No.KL II/T 5289 P2: A rough sketch showing the existing and proposed routes of the petitioner P3: True copy of the proceedings dated 27-7-2006 of the 1st respondent. P4: True copy of the appeal memorandum in M.V.A.A.No.688/2006. P5: True copy of the judgment dated 2-1-2007 in MVAA 688/06 of the STAT P6: True copy of the Govt. order dated 3-2-1986 P7: True copy of judgment dated 29-7-205 in MVAA 319/2005 of the STAT Antony Dominic, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 10236 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner applied for variation of the permit and that was rejected by Ext.P3 proceedings by the Regional Transport Authority. In Ext.P3 it is stated that variation applied for by the petitioner from Karady to Thamarassery will adversely affect the K.S.R.T.C. and the travelling public. Aggrieved by Ext.P3, the petitioner filed Ext.P4 appeal before the Tribunal. The ground was that as there was no bus stops on the portion sought to be curtailed, the variation sought for even if granted, will not cause any in convenience to the public. The appeal was heard and rejected by Ext.P5 judgment. 2. The specific contention of the petitioner is that since there is no bus stops in the portion sought to be varied, no prejudice will be caused to the travelling public has not been considered by the tribunal. It is also found in the judgment that variation will result in violation of the scheme. The petitioner submits that this is unfounded and that there is no violation of the scheme, copy of which is produced as Ext.P6. It is also contended that in WPC 10236/07 -2- Ext.P7 judgment in respect of the very same route, the tribunal has held that there was no violation of the scheme. 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the matter has to be reconsidered by the Tribunal. For that purpose I set aside Ext.P5 judgment. 4. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of and the tribunal is directed to reconsider the appeal on merits with notice to the petitioner and others and pass orders thereon as expeditiously as possible. Antony Dominic, Judge. mn.