VINODAN CHONNEENTAVIA TAHZHAKUNI, NADAPURAM, KOZHIKODE Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, VATAKARA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayers in this Original Petition (Civil) filed under the enabling provisions contained in Article 227 of the Constitution of India are as follows :

(2.) Heard Sri.G.Prabhakaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. P. Santhosh, learned Special Government Pleader (Motor Vehicles) appearing for the official respondents. 3. The petitioner herein is the regular stage carriage permit holder operating on the route Chambol - Harbour - Mukkali - Vatakara - Kottamthuruthy - Koyilandy - Muchukunnu with the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-18/B 903. It is stated that the said vehicle is having larger wheel base than the earlier replaced vehicle which was operating on the route and presently it is possible for the said vehicle to pass through the narrow route between Kottakkadavu and Kottamthuruthy for

(3.) Km. and there is no width for the road on that portion, so as to enable a medium stage carriage vehicle to pass through that portion of the road. Hence, the petitioner had filed an application for variation for curtailing the portion of the road from Kottakkadavu to Kottamthuruthy for 3 Km. as the vehicle could not pass through that way, it is averred. Along with the said variation application, the petitioner had also sought for altering the status of 1 P.M. trip from Koyilandy to Muchukunnu as 3:55 P.M., which is essential for the students from Koyilandy to go back to the destination. That variation application was rejected by Exhibit-P1 proceedings dated 23.6.2016. Exhibit-P1 herein was impugned by the petitioner by filing Motor Vehicle Act Appeal, MVAA No.128 of 2016 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam. The Tribunal as per Exhibit-P2 judgment rendered on 23.11.2016 had held that the Field Officer's report, which was in favour of the petitioner, has not been properly considered by the Regional Transport Authority (RTA). It is noted that in the Field Officer's report, it has been made clear that Kottakkadavu to Kottamthuruthy road is very narrow and hence heavy vehicles and medium vehicles cannot conduct service through that portion and the Field Officer also had reported that the time of the trip be changed from 1 P.M. which is not a peak travelling time and that at the proposed time of 3:55 P.M., large number of students and employees from officers will be available as passengers, which will be beneficial to the travel and public. It has also stated in the Field Officer's report that the return trip from Muchukunnu to Koyilandy at 4:30 P.M. is also beneficial to the college students of Government College, Muchukunnu. The Tribunal as per Exhibit-P2 judgment found that a perusal of Exhibit-P1 proceedings of the RTA would disclose that none of these crucial aspects borne out from the said report of the Field Officer has been duly considered and adverted to by the RTA. It was held that it is not proper and right for the RTA to ignore the Field Officer's report except on genuine and valid grounds and that unless reasons are stated to overlook the Field Officer's report, it was not proper on the part of the RTA to pass an order as the one in Exhibit-P1. On that ground, the Tribunal as per Exhibit-P2 judgment dated 23.11.2016 had allowed the appeal remanding the matter by setting aside the impugned Exhibit-P1 order and by remitting the matter to the RTA for consideration of the matter afresh after the opportunity of hearing. The impugned Exhibit-P3 proceedings has now been passed by the RTA, in purported compliance of the directions issued by the Tribunal in Exhibit-P2. The Tribunal, as per the impugned Exhibit-P5 judgment dated 27.10.2017, has found that there is no ground to interfere with the impugned Exhibit-P3 order. It is these proceedings that are under challenge in this O.P.(C).