IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 1494 of 2010(J)
1. A.M.NOUSHAD, AATTUPARAMBATHU HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY, R.T.A., TRICHUR.
For Petitioner :SMT.SANGEETHA LAKSHMANA
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :15/01/2010
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
—————————————-
W.P.(C) No.1494 of 2010 – J
—————————————-
Dated 15th January, 2010
Judgment
The petitioner is a stage carriage operator operating the stage
carriage bearing registration No.KL/08W-1683 on the route
Guruvayur-Ernakuklam South. Ext.P1 is a true copy of the stage
carriage permit issued to him on 17.2.2007. In the year 2008, the
petitioner applied to the Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur for
variation of the regular permit by curtailing the route from
Koonammavu to Kunnumpuram, via, Pathalam. The Regional
Transport Authority, Thrissur by Ext.P2 order passed on 7.8.2008
declined the said request holding that the curtailment of the route
will adversely affect the pilgrims of the area namely, the area
presently serviced by the petitioner and that the route through
which variation is sought is a well served sector. Aggrieved by
Ext.P2, the petitioner filed M.V.A.A. No.543 of 2008 before the State
Transport Appellate Tribunal. By Ext.P3 order passed on
19.12.2008, the said appeal was rejected. Exts.P2 and P3 are
under challenge in this writ petition.
W.P.(C) No. 1494/2010 2
2. Ext.P3 appellate order was passed on 19.12.2008. This
writ petition was filed on 14.1.2010. The petitioner has explained
the delay in challenging Ext.P3 by stating that though another
counsel was entrusted with the files with instructions to file a writ
petition, he had not made arrangements for filing the writ petition.
The Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur and the State Transport
Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam have in the impugned orders held
that curtailment of the route from Koonammavu to Kunnumpuram
via. Panaikulam, Pathalam and Majummel will adversely affect the
residents of the said locality and that the sector from Guruvayur to
Kunnumpuram via. Varapuzha bridge is served by other operators
including the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. The
authorities concerned have held that if the request made by the
petitioner for curtailment of the route is granted, residents of the
locality which is presently served by the petitioner’s stage carriage
bus will be put to considerable difficulty. The State Transport
Appellate Tribunal has also noticed that the convenience or
inconvenience of the travelling public is a relevant consideration
while granting or rejecting a request for curtailment of the route.
W.P.(C) No. 1494/2010 3
3. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by
Smt.Sangeetha Lakshmana, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner. On going through the pleadings and after hearing the
submissions made at the Bar, I am in full agreement with the
Regional Transport Authority and the State Transport Appellate
Authority that if the curtailment of the route sought by the
petitioner is granted the travelling public including the residents of
the locality presently served by the petitioner’s stage carriage bus
will be put to considerable difficulty. The view taken by the
Regional Transport Authority and the State Transport Appellate
Tribunal is a plausible view on the facts and it cannot be said to be
perverse warranting interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
I accordingly hold that no grounds have been made out to
interfere with Exts.P2 and P3. The writ petition fails and is
accordingly dismissed.
P.N.RAVINDRAN
Judge
vaa