IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 437 of 2009(B)
1. NATIONAL CITIZEN FORUM, KOTHALA EAST,
... Petitioner
2. V.C.ABRAHAM, VATTAKUNNEL HOSE,
Vs
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
... Respondent
2. SRI.JOBIN GEO, S/O. K.C.VARKEY,
For Petitioner :SRI.A.INEES
For Respondent :SRI.P.DEEPAK
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :10/08/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = =
W.P.(C). No. 437 OF 2009
= = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = =
Dated this the 10th day of August 2009.
JUDGMENT
The first petitioner claims to be a registered Association
which is working for the welfare of the citizens in and around
Pampady, Vazhoor, Kooropada and Pallickathode Panchayaths.
Second petitioner is a resident in Pampady Panchayath.
2. Second respondent is a stage carriage operator,
operating on the route Elamkad-Kottayam. The original distance
of the route was 65 Kms. Second respondent made a requisition
for an extension of the service from Elamkad to Elamkad Top as
a variation and also made request for conversion of the service
into limited stop ordinary service. By Ext.P8, the Regional
Transport Authority granted the extension subject to settlement
of timings. But the plea for the conversion into limited stop
ordinary service was not considered and in fact treated as
rejected.
3. Second respondent preferred an appeal as
M.V.A.A.No.488/07 by Ext.P9. The matter was remanded back to
W.P.(C). No. 437 OF 2009
2
the R.T.A. The Tribunal also found the extension as eligible to be
granted and directed the R.T.A. to endorse the extension subject
to settlement of timings. The plea for conversion was directed to
be reconsidered.
4. By Ext.P12, the R.T.A. reconsidered the question of
conversion and rejected the same, essentially citing two reasons.
Firstly, that on conversion, the route will pass through ghat
section, wherein the maximum speed limit of 35 Kms./Hr. will be
incompatible with limited stop ordinary service. The second
reason cited was that the public would be inconvenience by the
conversion into a limited stop ordinary service and the
consequent reduction of the number of stops as is evidenced by
ExtP10. The number of stops of the service originally was 49
and on conversion, it has been reduced to 21.
5. Second respondent preferred an appeal before the
Tribunal. The appeal was allowed as per Ext.P13 judgment,
directing that the conversion sought for should be allowed.
Ext.P13 has been challenged in this writ petition.
W.P.(C). No. 437 OF 2009
3
6. It seems that in the meanwhile, the operator had
approached this Court in W.P.(C).No.35528 of 2008 and by R2(b)
judgment, this Court had directed that further steps be taken
pursuant to Ext.P13 judgment.
7. But the petitioners herein were not parties to R2(b)
judgment.
8. Ext.P13 has been challenged in this writ petition on
more than one ground. Firstly, it is contended that if there is a
rejection of plea for conversion, the order as such cannot be
appealed before the Tribunal. It is next contended that the
public would be affected by the conversion and therefore, atlease
some of the objectors, who had opposed the conversion before
the R.T.A. should have been made parties in the Appeal against
Ext.P12.
9. It is contended on behalf of the second respondent that
the public are not inconvenienced by the conversion into limited
stop ordinary service. The present petitioners are only a facade
for a rival stage carriage operator, operating in the same route.
W.P.(C). No. 437 OF 2009
4
10. I heard Mr. Inees, learned Counsel for the petitioner,
learned Government Pleader and Mr. P.Deepak, learned Counsel
for the second respondent.
11. I do not find it necessary to decide the question as to
whether an appeal is maintainable against an order rejecting a
plea for conversion of an ordinary service into limited stop
ordinary service in this writ petition. But I am of the view that
since one of the grounds on which the plea for conversion is
rejected relates to the convenience of the public, an appeal
against Ext.P12 could have been maintained only with one or
more objectors in the party array. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, the petitioners shall been impleaded
as additional respondents in the appeal against Ext.P12 and the
matter should be considered afresh. I clear that this will be
without prejudice to the right of the second respondent to
challenge the locus standi of the petitioners herein as well.
12. In these circumstances, Ext.P13 is set aside and
M.V.A.A.357/2008 shall stand restored to file. The petitioners
herein shall be impleaded as additional respondents 3 and 4.
W.P.(C). No. 437 OF 2009
5
The appeal shall be reconsidered and, orders shall be passed by
the Tribunal after hearing the parties within 3 months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
(V.GIRI)
JUDGE
kkms/
