M.A. Scaria vs The Regional Transport Authority and Others

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.—The appellant is the writ petitioner. He is a stage carriage operator, operating the vehicle KL-01-AL-2199 on the route Thottackadu-Nedumkandom via. Changanacherry, Ponkunnam, Mundakkayam, Kattappana. The bus starts and terminates operation at Changanacherry. He applied for a variation of the permit, by submitting Ext.P1(2) application in the prescribed form. It was forwarded along with Ext.P1(1) covering letter. There is no column in the prescribed form for giving reasons for seeking variation. So, in the covering letter, Ext.P1 (1), he stated as follows:

The variation sought for is in the form of change in starting & termini at Mundakayam. At present the starting and termini is at Changanacherry. Now I am residing at Mundakayam, hence halting of the vehicle after the service at Mundakayam would help me to arrange and to ensure proper mechanical fitness of the vehicle before commencing the service. Further it would ensure the safety of the vehicle also. Moreover, the staff working in the vehicle also hail from Mundakayam and its surrounding areas. Hence I seek change in starting and termini at Mundakayam. Such a change would be beneficial to the travelling public also.

The Regional Transport Authority considered the application and rejected it as per Ext.P2 on three grounds. The first ground reads as follows:

The curtailment of first and last trips from Changanassery will affect the existing travelling public.

The petitioner challenged Ext.P2 order before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, by Ext.P7 order dismissed the appeal. It was found that by shifting the starting point, the travelling public will be affected. The Tribunal also took the view that there was no change of circumstances as contemplated under Rule 145(6) of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, warranting variation of the permit. Challenging Exts.P2 and P7, the writ petition was filed. The learned Single Judge took the view that the findings of the Tribunal that the travelling public will be affected etc. are findings of fact with which this Court cannot interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In that view of the matter, the writ petition was dismissed. Hence this appeal.

We heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader for the official respondents. We have already quoted the grounds detailed by the appellant for seeking variation, contained in Ext.P1(1). Rule 145(6) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules reads as follows:

(6) The Transport Authorities shall, in deciding whether to vary or extend a route, have regard to the following matters, namely:

Variation of extension of route may be allowed when-- (i) new circumstances have arisen since the route was decided, such as the construction of a bridge, or road; (ii) the transport requirements of the area to be served were overlooked or have changed.

Going by the above rule, we notice that the appellant has not made out any ground in Ext.P1(1)for seeking variation of the permit. On this ground alone, his application was liable to be rejected. In view of the above position, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on other grounds taken by the Regional Transport Authority and the State Transport Appellate Tribunal for deciding against the appellant. It is also clarified that this judgment will not affect the rights, if any, of the appellant to file a proper application for variation of his permit.