AJITHKUMAR v. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

R1 AND R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANITHA RAVINDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No.24016/2012 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: APPENDIX EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH OF THE ROUTE. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 8/12/2010 REJECTING THE APPLICATION. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM AS MVAA.NO.265/2011 DATED 12/7/2011. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN MVAA.NO.265/2011 DATED 20/1/2012. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE FORWARDING LETTER GIVEN BY THE LOCAL MEMBER OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR WHO IS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 29/4/2012. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE KALLUVATHUKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 4/8/2012. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 7/8/2012 GRANTING VARIATION OF PERMIT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.24016 OF 2012 ------------------------- DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2012 JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.

2. Ext.P7 order passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Kollam is under challenge. The Regional Transport Authority by proceedings dated 8/12/2010 considered the application for variation of the permit submitted by the 3rd respondent herein. The application for variation includes a curtailment of the existing route portion from Mavinmoodu to Kalluvathukkal (10 kms.). The Regional Transport Authority found that the proposed variation will adversely affect the travelling public, that there is no circumstantial change as envisaged in Rule 135(6) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and therefore the application was rejected. Ext.P2 order was passed after hearing the 3rd respondent, petitioner and other objectors. The 3rd respondent W.P.(C).No.24016/2012 -2- preferred Ext.P3 appeal. In the said appeal the respondents are the Regional Transport Authority and the its Secretary. Objectors are not made parties. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent has not disclosed the fact that this is the only service on the sector Meenambalam to Kalluvathukkal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. At the same time the 3rd respondent contended that there are 22 services on the remaining sector. The Tribunal by Ext.P4 judgment remanded the matter to the lst respondent. The Tribunal took into consideration the contention raised by the appellant (3rd respondent herein) that there are 22 services from Mavinmoodu to Meenambalam on the way to Kalluvathukkal covering 8 kms. out of 10 kms. over which the curtailment was sought for. The Tribunal observed that the frequency of the services in the area of 8 kms. has not been considered by the authority below in rejecting the application. The Tribunal also observed that the impugned order does not contain anything regarding the proposed extension sought for. In these W.P.(C).No.24016/2012 -3- circumstances, Ext.P2 order passed by the Regional Transport Authority was set aside and remanded the matter back to the authority for fresh consideration.

3. After remand, the matter was taken up for consideration by the Regional Transport Authority. The petitioner, Panchayat and other objectors seriously objected grant of curtailment on the said sector. Kalluvathukkal Grama Panchayat by way of resolution requested the authority not to curtail the existing facilities stating that this is the only service on the sector from Meenambalam to Kalluvathukkal. All objectors submitted before the Regional Transport Authority that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, without considering the fact that this is the only service on the sector Meenambalam to Kalluvathukkal, set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority. The Regional Transport Authority, by Ext.P7 order dated 7/8/2012, allowed the application for variation subject to settlement of timings.

4. Kalluvathukkal Grama Panchayat convened a W.P.(C).No.24016/2012 -4- meeting on 4/8/2012 and passed Ext.P6 resolution pointing out that the 3rd respondent's service is the only service which is operating between Kalluvathukkal and Meenmambalam and the entire workers, students and Government employees are depending upon the sole service. It was requested by all the objectors that curtailment sought for will seriously affect the entire travelling public. The grievance of the objectors is that Ext.P7 order was passed without noticing the true fact that this is the only service between the sector from Meenambalam to Kalluvathukkal. According to them, this fact was deliberately and willfully suppressed while the application for curtailment was allowed.

5. Ext.P7 order is dated 7/8/2012. Proceedings was issued to the petitioner as per his request dated 20/9/2012. Petitioner submits that by this time the period for filing the revision petition has been expired and therefore he was unable to move the revision with a petition to condone the delay. Finding that urgent orders are necessary, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.24016/2012 -5- this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. Taking into consideration the matter in detail, this Court is of the view that the matter now agitated before this Court will have to be agitated in revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. Since the petitioner got knowledge about Ext.P7 order only on 29/9/2012, he could not prefer a revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal within the statutory period. Petitioner has serious objection in passing Ext.P7 order. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to approach the State Transport Appellate Tribunal by filing the revision petition. In the event of the petitioner files a revision petition within a period of two weeks from today, the Tribunal shall treat the revision petition as if the same was filed within the prescribed time limit. In the event of the petitioner files an application for interim stay along with the revision petition, the Tribunal shall consider the stay application W.P.(C).No.24016/2012 -6- within a period of two weeks from the date of filing of the application and pass appropriate orders thereon, after hearing the parties. kcv. HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE.