IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 3326 of 2008(U)
1. SAJU K.JOHN, KILIKUNNEL, SOUTH PARAVUR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE
... Respondent
2. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
3. SECRETARY, R.T.A., KOTTAYAM.
4. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
For Petitioner :SRI.P.DEEPAK
For Respondent :SHRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :05/02/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
—————————-
W.P.(C)3326/2008
—————————-
Dated this the 5th day of February 2008
Judgment
Variation of permit was granted to the petitioner by Ext.P3.
However, as against the request for Limited Stop Ordinary
Service (LSOS), the variation granted was as ordinary service.
An appeal was filed against the order limiting the variation of
regular permit as ordinary service and the matter was remanded
by Ext.P4. By the time, the matter was remanded, a new draft
modification dated 9.5.2007 had come into force. In view of the
overlapping on the notified route, while considering the matter
afresh, the RTA by Ext.P6 revoked the variation granted. This is
obviously in terms of the provisions contained in the aforesaid
notification. The petitioner again challenged the decision of the
RTA before the Tribunal and the matter was again considered by
the Tribunal. In Ext.P8, the Tribunal took the view that the RTA
while considering the request was bound by the draft notification
dated 9.5.2007 and therefore has rightly revoked the grant itself.
2. Counsel for the petitioner contends that when the
W.P.(C)3326/2008 2
remand was limited to the question of confining the grant of
extension as ordinary service, the RTA should not have revoked
the variation granted. I am not in a position to agree with the
learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Though the permit was
granted before the notification dated 9.5.2007 was issued, the
fact remains that the matter was reconsidered by the RTA only
on 7.8.2007 which is much after the notification had come into
force. If that be so, the RTA could not have violated the terms of
the notification. That apart, the notification only saves the
existing operators as on or prior 18.4.2007 and as the petitioner
was not an existing operator, he is not entitled to the benefits of
the saving clause. If that be so, the view taken by the Tribunal
cannot be faulted with.
The writ petition fails. Dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
css/