THOMAS Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was having a regular permit on the route Mukkom - Punnakal - Kodenchery, granted in respect of his vehicle, KL-10/7884. He submitted an application for variation of the permit, by granting extension of one trip from Kodenchery to Chempukadavu. The said application for variation was rejected by the R. T. A. Kozhikode, at its meeting held on 7.8.2002. He moved the S. T. A. T. by filing M. V. A. A. No. 592/02. The said appeal was allowed, by Ext. P2 judgment, directing the R. T. A. to grant the variation, as prayed for. The R. T. A. considered the matter and rejected it again, by Ext. P3. This Writ Petition is filed challenging Ext. P3.

(2.) I heard the learned Government Pleader for the respondents also. Ext. P1 is the decision of the R. T. A. dated 7.8.2002 rejecting the application for variation of the permit. The said decision reads as follows:

(3.) Ext. P3 decision of the R. T. A. is plainly perverse. Men, in their senses, will never take such a decision. The R. T. A. has ignored the decision of the Appellate Authority and stuck to its original stand. The same cannot be tolerated. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed with compensatory costs. The R. T. A. shall grant the permit as directed by the S. T. A. T., within one month. The cost is fixed as Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) which shall be paid by the State Government. There after, the same shall be recovered from the members of the R. T. A., who took Ext. P3 decision, within three months.