IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 28985 of 2008(A) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- KANARAN M.C. AGED 70 YEARS, S/O. KURUMBAN, THARAMMAL HOUSE, KOTTAKKAL P.O., VATAKARA. BY ADVOCATES MR.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON MR.M.JITHESH MENON RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, VATAKARA. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, VATAKARA. 3. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. M.A.ASIFF THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 28985 of 2008(A) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT OF THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE ENDORSEMENT REGARDING REPLACEMENT OF THE VEHICLE AND RENEWAL EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT DATED 17.11.2007. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION MEMORANDUM AS MVARP NO. 573/07 (WITHOUT EXHIBITS) FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 6.12.2007. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN MVARP NO. 573/07 DATED 9.7.2008. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE TIME SCHEDULE OF STAGE CARRIAGE IN RESPECT OF KL-18/4300 REPLACED BY KL-13/H/1837. EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE TIME SCHEDULE OF STAGE CARRIAGE IN RESPECT OF KL-11/H.7576 REPLACED BY KL-18/A.5081. EXT.P7 - TRUE COPY OF THE TIME SCHEDULE OF STAGE CARRIAGE IN RESPECT OF KL-11/M.3643. EXT.P8 - TRUE COPY OF THE TIME SCHEDULE IN RESPECT OF STAGE CARRIAGE KL- 11/K.2205 REPLACED BY KL-18/8298. EXT.P9 - TRUE COPY OF THE TIME SCHEDULE IN RESPECT OF STAGE CARRIAGE KL- 11/N.3742. EXT.P10 - TRUE COPY OF THE TIME SCHEDULE IN RESPECT OF STAGE CARRIAGE KL- 11/N-8040 REPLACED BY KL-18/C.1236. // TRUE COPY / PA TO JUDGE rhs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C) No.28985 of 2008 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT Exhibit P2 to the extent curtailment of trips sought for by the petitioner was declined and Exhibit P4 judgment rendered by the STAT dismissing an appeal filed against Exhibit P2, are under challenge. 2. Petitioner is an existing operator, who was issued a permit covered in the route Vatakara– Tharapuram- Kolavipalam. He sought curtailment in the sector Tharapuram – Kolavipalam and extension in the sector Tharapuram to Arabic College. By Exhibit P2 proceedings of the RTA, extension was granted without curtailment of trips to Kolavipalam, subject to settlement of timings. 3. Exhibit P2 to the extent curtailment declined was challenged before the Tribunal by filing Exhibit P3 revision, M.V.A.R.P No.573 of 2007. Revision was heard and by Exhibit P4 order, it was rejected. 4. A reading of Exhibit P4 order shows that the reason for W.P.(C) No.28985/2008 2 confirming Exhibit P2 order was that curtailment if granted, will affect the traveling public. This conclusion was arrived at on the basis of the enquiry report that was available to the Tribunal as part of R.T.A. files. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid conclusion of the R.T.A and S.T.A.T is on the basis of enquiry reports. He referred to me the pleadings in the second paragraph, where the relevant portion of three enquiry reports that were available before the R.T.A have been extracted. In the first two reports, although extension has been recommended, nothing is stated on the request of the petitioner about curtailment. In the third report it is stated that curtailment of 7 trips(single) from Vadakara to Kolavipalam will affect the travelling public of Tharapuram - Kolavipalam sector, which is only 0.5 kilometer distance. A reading of Exhibits P2 and P4 gives the impression that it is entirely relying on the aforesaid reports that curtailment has been declined. The reports show that enquiry officer thought that curtailment was sought in the sector Vadakara to Kolavipalam, while in fact the petitioner sought curtailment in the sector Tharapuram to Kolavipalam. If W.P.(C) No.28985/2008 3 that be so , the report is factually erroneous and consequently the conclusion of both R.T.A and STAT also is erroneous. 5. For that reason, I am inclined to set aside Exhibit P2 to the extent curtailment is declined and Exhibit P4 order rendered by the Tribunal dismissing M.V.A.R.P No.573/2007. The matter is remanded to the R.TA., who shall consider the enquiry reports and after every enquiry on merits, decide the application for curtailment, made by the petitioner. Orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months of receipt of copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm