IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 37518 of 2008(N)
1. THE SECRETARY, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :17/06/2010
O R D E R
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
---------------------------
W.P(C).No.37518 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of June, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner holds a regular permit to operate stage
carriage service on the route Attukal- Parottukonam Sivan Kovil
junction. He applied to the Regional Transport Authority for
variation of the permit, as per Exhibit P1 application. The
variation requested for was to extend the route up to Maruthoor
Kadavu, so that the vehicle can operate from Maruthoor Kadavu-
to Attukal-Parottukonam Sivan Kovil junction. A deviation was
also requested for.
2. Exhibit P1 application was considered in the meeting of
the Regional Transport Authority held on 18/4/2008. The
decision rendered reads as follows:
“The proposed varying areas are well served
KSRTC and other private services. Also the proposed
curtailment will adversely effect the passengers of that
area.
As per KMV Rule 145(R) RTA can allow the
variation or extension only when
i) New circumstances have arisen since the route
was decided, such as the construction of bridge
or road;
W.P(C).No.37518/2008
2
ii) The transport requirements of the area to be
served were overlooked or have changed.
This is also not established. Hence rejected.”
3. Aggrieved by the decision of the Regional Transport
Authority, the petitioner filed an appeal as M.V.A.A. No.365 of
2008 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam.
The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal by the judgment
dated 30/08/2008, which is under challenge in this Writ Petition.
4. Before the Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner did not
press the request for deviation of the route. However, the request
for variation and extension was pressed. The Appellate Tribunal
held that taking into account the convenience of the travelling
public, the rejection of the request for variation was justified. It
was also found by the authorities below that the proposed
varying areas are well served by KSRTC and other private
services.
5. Rule 145(6) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules,1989
provides that;
The Transport Authorities shall, in deciding whether to
vary or extend a route, have regard to the following matters,
W.P(C).No.37518/2008
3
namely:-
(i)new circumstances have arisen since the route was decided,
such as the construction of a bridge, or road:
(ii)the transport requirements of the area to be served were
overlooked or have changed.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that clauses (i) and (ii) of Sub-rule (6) are illustrative
and that for variation or extension, other circumstances also
could be taken note of. The counsel relied on the judgment in
W.A. No.152 of 1992 in support of the contention.
7. It is not established by the petitioner that clauses (i)
and (ii) of Sub-rule (6) of Rule 145 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles
Rules are made out in the case on hand. No other circumstance
justifying the variation or extension of the route is also
established in the case. On the other hand, the clear finding by
the Regional Transport Authority is that the proposed varying
areas are well served by K.S.R.T.C and other private services.
The Appellate Tribunal rightly held that taking into account the
convenience of the travelling public, it is not necessary or
expedient to vary or extend the route as sought for by the
petitioner.
W.P(C).No.37518/2008
4
8. The findings rendered by the authorities below are
findings of fact. No circumstance is made out to interfere with the
concurrent findings of fact, which normally would not be
interfered with in a proceeding under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. I am of the view that the order passed by
the Regional Transport Authority and the judgment rendered by
the Appellate Tribunal are legal and proper.
For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE
scm