G.M.MURALEEDHARAN Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN ambiguity in the proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority in considering the application for temporary variation of a route has led to the filing of these two writ petitions. W.P(C) No.286/2013 has been filed by a private operator and W.P(C) No.6651/2013 has been filed by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Limited ('KSRTC' for short) . The third respondent in both the writ petitions is the grantee and I heard Mr. Stalin Peter Davis,Advocate on his behalf.

(2.) THE petitioners point out that the agenda of item No.5 in the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority held on 20-11-2012 mentions only the consideration of the application for variation of route of the stage carriage bearing Reg. No. KL -01/Y 8181 operated by the third respondent . The petitioners also assert that only the temporary variation of the route has been granted on account of the repair works being done by the Public Works Department. The repair works are being done to the Chembakapallam bridge which falls on the route Thiruvalla - v.-Kottayam through which the third respondent is operating his service.

(3.) HERE is a case where the proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority is ambiguous in as much as the curtailment and addition of trips are not reflected in the application or agenda. Nevertheless the acceptance of the proposed timing by the third respondent would give an impression that the temporary variation includes curtailment and addition of trip as well. This is a matter to be clarified by the Regional Transport Authority itself as to the purport and import of the grant of varied permit.