IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 29083 of 2010(I)
1. K.M.MATHEW, AGED 61, S/O.MICHAEL
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY
For Petitioner :SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :13/01/2011
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
-----------------------------------------
W.P(C).No.29083 of 2010
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of January, 2011
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a stage carriage operator operating a stage
carriage on the route Pala-Muttam-Valakam via. Chellavayal,
Kanjirathumkavala, Melukavu. He had applied for variation of the
permit by curtailing the sector between Muttam and Valakam
covering a distance of 12 Kms, thereby limiting the operation of
the service on the sector Pala-Muttam. By Ext.P4 order passed on
22.1.2009 the Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam rejected
that application. Aggrieved thereby he filed M.V.A.A.No.227 of
2009 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam.
By Ext.P5 judgment delivered on 29-10-2009 the State Transport
Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside Ext.P4 and
remanded the petitioner’s application to the Regional Transport
Authority, Kottayam for fresh consideration in the light of the
observations made therein. The Regional Transport Authority,
Kottayam thereafter met on 20.5.2010 to reconsider the
petitioner’s application. However, by Ext.P6 order, the application
W.P(C).No.29083 of 2010
-:2:-
was adjourned to await a report from the Field Officer as to
whether the curtailment of the route will adversely affect the
travelling public. The grievance voiced by the petitioner in this
writ petition is that instead of expeditiously passing orders on his
application for variation of the permit, the Regional Transport
Authority has adjourned the application and called for a report,
which according to the petitioner was quite unnecessary in view of
the observations in Ext.P5 judgment. In this writ petition the
petitioner challenges Ext.P6 order and seeks a direction to the
first respondent to pass revised orders on his application for
variation of the permit within a time limit to be fixed by this Court
without waiting for the report from the Field Officer.
2. When the writ petition came up for hearing today, the
learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Regional
Transport Authority that met on 23.12.2010 reconsidered the
petitioner’s application, but till date orders have not been passed
thereon. In such circumstances as the Regional Transport
Authority had met again on 23.12.2010 for the purpose of
reconsidering the petitioner’s application, I am of the opinion that
the ends of justice will be met if the Regional Transport Authority
is directed to take a decision on the petitioner’s application for
W.P(C).No.29083 of 2010
-:3:-
variation of the permit pursuant to Ext.P5 order of remand passed
by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal expeditiously.
I accordingly dispose of the writ petition with a direction to
the Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam to pass orders
pursuant to the meeting held by it on 23.12.2010 expeditiously
and in any event within one month from the date on which the
petitioner produces a copy of this judgment before the second
respondent. The Regional Transport Authority shall after orders
are passed on the petitioner’s application communicate a copy
thereof to him expeditiously. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the
order passed by the Regional Transport Authority, it will be open
to him to challenge the same in other appropriate proceedings.
His contentions on the merits are kept open.
P.N.RAVINDRAN,
Judge.
ahg.
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
—————————
W.P(C).No.29083 of 2010
—————————-
JUDGMENT
13th January, 2011