N. DIVAKARAN Vs. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner is a resident of Karakurissi and a member of Karakurissi Grama Panchayat. He has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P1 order dated 22.4.2008 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam allowing an appeal filed by the third Respondent, a stage carriage operator. The brief facts of the case are as follows.

(2.) THE third Respondent who was operating a stage carriage on the route Konikkazhy - Attassery via Pulapatta, Thumbakkanny, Ponnamkode, Mannarkkad and Kottappuram moved an application before the Regional Transport Authority for variation of the permit by seeking an extension of the route. The said application was rejected by the Regional Transport Authority by order dated 16.10.2007. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam. By Ext.P1 order passed on 22.4.2008, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order and directed the Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad, to grant the variation of permit as sought by the Appellant subject to settlement of timings. Pursuant to Ext.P1 judgment of the Appellate Tribunal, the Petitioner submitted a W.P.(C) Nos. 2547 & 31617 of 2010 proposal for settlement of timings. It was considered by the Regional Transport Authority at its meeting held on 22.8.2008. Though the Tribunal granted variation of permit in implementation of Ext.P1 judgment, the Regional Transport Authority directed that the existing timings shall be maintained. Aggrieved thereby, the third Respondent filed W.P.(C) No. 25463 of 2009. By Ext.P4 judgment delivered on 2.11.2009, after notice to and hearing the official Respondents, a learned single Judge of this Court held that Ext.P3 is not in tune with Ext.P1 judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. Ext.P3 was accordingly quashed and the Regional Transport Authority was directed to reconsider the matter in accordance with Ext.P1 judgment and to pass orders at its next meeting. Pursuant to the said direction, the Regional Transport Authority that met on 28.1.2010 granted the variation subject to settlement of timings. It was at that stage that this writ petition was filed challenging Ext.P1 judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal to the extent it directs grant of variation subject to settlement of timings. The Petitioner contends that if the existing timings are varied, it will affect the travelling public and therefore the State Transport Appellate Tribunal ought to have granted variation subject to settlement of timings in the extended route only.

(3.) I heard Sri.M. Jitesh Menon, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 2547 of 2010, Sri.I. Dinesh Menon, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 31617 of 2010/third Respondent in W.P.(C) No. 2547 of 2010 and Sri. Manoj. P.M., the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official Respondents. I have also considered the pleadings and the materials on record. It is evident from the pleadings and materials on record that the third Respondent in W.P.(C) No. 2547 of 2010 is entitled to variation of the permit which was granted by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal by Ext.P1 judgment. The entitlement of the third Respondent for such variation of the permit is not in dispute. The only question is whether the existing timings should be maintained in respect of the original route and whether the third W.P.(C) Nos. 2547 & 31617 of 2010 Respondent is entitled to seek a variation of the timings. A learned single Judge of this Court has in Ext.P4 judgment produced in held that the third Respondent is entitled to have his case considered in the light of Ext.P1 judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal.