Murali M.V. v. The Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/21ST PHALGUNA, 1936 WP(C).No. 6236 of 2014 (D) --------------------------- PETITIONER :

------------------ MURALI M.V., RADHA BHAVAN, NARIPARAMBA P.O., THAVANNUR VIA, MALAPPURAM.

BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENTS :

----------------------

1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-678 505.

2. THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM-668 505.

3. SUBRTAMANIAN T.

S/O NARAYANAN, 15/263, THALAKAT HOUSE, P.O. EDAPPAL, MALAPPURAM-679 576.

4. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM-682 016.

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. R. RANJITH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

bp

WP(C).No. 6236 of 2014 (D) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1:

THE TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST RECEIVED DATED 30.5.2011. EXHIBIT P2:

TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RTA MALAPPURAM WITHITS NO.C/29919/2010M DATED 22.12.2010.

EXHIBIT P3:

TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION IN M.V.A.R.P NO.170/2011 DATED 24.5.2011.

EXHIBIT P4:

TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.9.2013 IN MVARP NO.170/2011.0 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL.

--------------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE bp

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No. 6236 of 2014 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of March, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is allegedly aggrieved by the curtailment of the route of the 3rd respondent by Ext.P2. The petitioner moved an application for revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal by Ext.P3. The allegation was that the service was introduced between Guruvayoor and Kadampuzha at the request of the travelling public and that the specific route takes in many important temples and curtailment now made between Kuttipuram and Kadampuzha adversely affects the travelling public.

2. The permit itself was granted long back and there would definitely be considerable services introduced in the sector, after the permit was granted. Probably that is one of the reason why curtailment was sought and was allowed by Ext.P2. In any event the RTA allowed the curtailment after considering the relevant aspects. In such circumstances, it does not lie in the mouth of a passenger to contend that the curtailment is against public interest. This Court would not

WPC.No.6236/2014 : 2 :

say anything on the ground on which the revision was rejected, being the petitioner not having locus standi. The petitioner does not put forth any convincing reason why he is aggrieved by the variation granted by the RTA. In any event, running of a stage carriage in a route is the prerogative of the permit holder and an authority has looked into the permit and allowed the curtailment. In such circumstance, this Court would not cause any interference in the matter. Writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/- (K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge