IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2009 / 15TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 28152 of 2009(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.A.SCARIA, MATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE,MUNDAKKAYAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, IDUKKI,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,IDUKKI. 3. THE SECRETARY, UDUMPUNCHOLA TALUK PASSENGERS ASSOCIATION,THOOKKUMPALAM. 4. LALICHAN ANTONY, KUNNIPARAMBIL HOUSE,FATHIMAPURAM P.O., CHANGANACHERRY. 5. SAJI NEELATHUMMUKKIL, MEMBER,WARD NO.XII,KARUKACHAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 6. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,REP.BY ITS DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER,IDUKKI. 7. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. JOHONSON P. JOHN, S.C. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 28152 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 7th October, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a stage carriage operator, holding a permit on the route Thottackadu – Nedumkandam. The petitioner filed an application for variation of the conditions of permit, which was rejected by Ext. P 2 order on the following grounds: “(i) The curtailment for first and last trips from Changanasery will affect the existing traveling public. (ii) The route length is above 140 kms (150 kms) and hence violation of KMV Rule (oa). (iii) The route objectionably overlaps the notified routes Ernakulam-Thekkady and Kottayam-Kattappana published vide notification No. 6122/Bi/Trans dtd 15/9/2008 and as per clause 4 and 19 of the said notification, the existing permits on the route shall continue till the date of expiry and the right to operate fresh service and increase trips is exclusively reserved for STU.” The petitioner filed an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in which additional respondents 3 to 6 got themselves impleaded and objected to the same. After hearing all the parties, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The petitioner is challenging that order. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that the Tribunal has simply accepted the objections of the impleading persons without considering the merits of the matter. The petitioner would contend that the Tribunal has arbitrarily come to the conclusion that variation, if granted, would affect the travelling public, which is against the facts of the case. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. The Tribunal has disposed of the appeal thus: W.P.C. No. 28152/09 -: 2 :- Of course, referring to the report of the Field Officer, as borne out by page No. 11 of the R.T.A files, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that the proposed variation will not affect the passengers on the route, in as much as the other services are operating on the route. But, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, it is to be remembered that the Field officer concerned has not detailed the other service on the route, which would be a substitute for the service in question. On the other hand, additional respondents 3 to 5 who are the people's representatives and passenger's association would point out that the curtailment of the morning trip from Changanacherry at 2.50 a.m. to the high-range area will adversely affect the travelling public, who are accustomed to this service for the past more than 9 years. It is also pointed out that there is no other service operating from changanacherry as a substitute for this service commencing its operation at 2.50 a.m. from changanacherry. No doubt, the shifting of the starting and halting place of the service from changancherry to Mundakayam may be advantageous to the permit holder, in as much as he is a resident of Mundakayam. But, as pointed out by the additional 4th respondent, for the past more than 9 years the permit holder did not find any difficulty in operating the service from Changanachery. At an rate, the convenience of the traveling public as enjoined u/s. 80(3) of the M.V. Act is decisive, while considering the request for variation of permit. The apart, as pointed out by the K.S.R.T.C, the extension of the evening trip from changanacherry to Mundakayam offends clause 19 of the draft notification dated 15.9.2008, in as much as the extension has to be treated as an additional trip from changanacyerry to Mundakkayam. In any case, considering the stiff opposition on the part of additional respondents 3 to 5, it cannot at all be said that the variation sought for will serve the public interest. The appellant is also not able to show that there is any change of circumstances as required under Rule 145(6) of the K.M.V. Rule enabling the variation of service as sought for by him. I any case, I am convinced that the first respondent was only justified in rejecting the appellant's request for variation of permit. It follows that this appeal is without any merit.” The Tribunal has dismissed the appeal on findings of facts. I do not think that in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, I can interfere with such findings of facts. In any event, I am unable to find that those findings of facts are in any way perverse. W.P.C. No. 28152/09 -: 3 :- Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.