IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 14TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 23RD BHADRA 1931 RP.No. 868 of 2009(V) --------------------- (JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).No. 23495/2007) REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- PAVANAN, PERAYANGATTIL HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMMURI P.O., PERINGOTTUKARA. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.FAYAZ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, RTA, THRISSUR. 3. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. 4. SAJEEVAN N.K., KODAPPULLY HOUSE, P.O.CHAZZHOOR, THRISSUR. 5. A.F.DAVIS, AKKARA HOUSE, VENGINISSERY, PARALAM, THRISSUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR ADV.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR P.RAVINDRAN, SC THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== R.P.No. 868/2009 in W.P.(C).No. 23495/2007 ================== Dated this the 14th day of September, 2009 O R D E R The review petitioner is not a party to the writ petition. He is a transferee of a permit issued to the 4th respondent. The writ petition is in respect of variation of the permit issued to the 4th respondent while he was holding the permit. The 4th respondent applied for variation of his regular permit with revised timings and additional trips. That application was rejected on the ground that as per the proposed timings, certain trips are curtailed and the curtailment of trips will adversely affect the travelling public. The 4th respondent challenged that order in M.V.A.A.No. 715/2005 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam. By Ext.P5 judgment, the Tribunal found that although there is no route curtailment, there is trip curtailment as is evidenced from the proposed and existing time schedules. But, the 4th respondent submitted before the Tribunal that he does not require curtailment of trips. In such circumstances, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the RTA for considering the question of variation without substantial alteration of existing trips. Thereafter, the RTA again considered the application of the 4th respondent and granted the prayer in the application by Ext.P6 order. That order was challenged in the writ petition by the petitioner in the writ petition, who is another existing operator in the same route. The petitioner in 2 the writ petition contended that the Tribunal has directed to consider the question of grant of variation without curtailing the existing trips, whereas, by Ext. P6 order, the RTA has simply allowed the application filed by the 4th respondent, which includes the curtailment of existing trips also, which goes against Ext.P5 judgment. At the time of hearing of the writ petition, I directed the 4th respondent to file an affidavit as to whether what has been allowed is the original application which was the subject matter of Ext.P5 judgment of the Tribunal or a modified application in accordance with Ext.P5 judgment of the Tribunal. The 4th respondent filed an affidavit to the effect that he has not filed any further modified application. Since from Ext.P6 it is abundantly clear that what has been allowed is the 4th respondent's application, which includes the curtailment of existing trips in the judgment sought to be reviewed, I held that in view of Ext.P5 judgment of the Tribunal, that cannot be permitted. In that view, I quashed Ext.P6 order making it clear that it would be open to the 4th respondent to file a fresh application for modifications as stipulated in Ext.P5 judgment, in which event, the RTA was to consider the same in accordance with the direction in Ext.P5 judgment, as expeditiously as possible. That judgment is sought to be reviewed at the instance of the review petitioner on the ground that he is a proper party to the writ petition in so far as the permit was transferred to him even prior 3 to the filing of the writ petition and he was not made a party. Although the 4th respondent never informed this Court that he had transferred the permit, I heard the petitioner in the review petition on merits in order to decide whether it is necessary to review the judgment at all. 2. The petitioner in the review petition raises two contentions. The first is that the remedy of the petitioner in the writ petition lies in approaching the Tribunal appropriately as provided under the Motor Vehicles Act against the order granting variation. The second is that the petitioner is not in any way aggrieved by the order and in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Binu Chacho v. R.T.A. Pathanamthitta [2006 (2) KLT 172], the petitioner could not have validly maintained a challenge against the impugned order. 3. I have heard both sides. 4. The first contention does not appeal to me in so far as the RTA has passed orders in contravention of the earlier judgment of the Tribunal itself. In view of that circumstance, a writ petition would certainly lie despite the availability of an alternate remedy. Regarding the second contention, I do not think that the petitioner's contention is correct. In view of the variation granted, the petitioner is certainly aggrieved in so far as the variation is certainly against the judgment of the Tribunal. In Binu Chacho's case (supra) itself, the Full Bench made it abundantly clear that in case of grant of variation, an existing 4 operator can challenge the order granting variation. Therefore, there is no merit in this contention also. That being so, I do not think that any review is necessary in my judgment dated 19.6.2009. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. However, I make it clear that as the transferee of the permit, the petitioner in the review petition can pursue the matter before the RTA as directed in the judgment in the place of the 4th respondent. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 5