Shaffique, J. This appeal is filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 10-10-2014 in W.P. ( C) No. 14101 of 2013. By the impugned judgment, the Writ Petition filed by the appellant challenging the order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in MVAA No. 332/2010 dated 30-12-2011, has been dismissed.
2. The facts involved in the above Writ Petition would disclose that the petitioner is having a regular permit on the route Valiyavila-Medical College in respect of his stage carriage KL-01/AA 7007. Petitioner applied for extension of the route by filing an application for variation by 8 kms which was originally rejected by the Regional Transport Authority. In appeal filed by the petitioner, the same was allowed. The 3rd respondent herein filed Writ Petition No. 18909/2012 before this Court challenging that the order passed by the Tribunal contending that there is objectionable overlapping.
3. After hearing the parties by judgment dated 10-10-2012 this Court remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration after hearing the affected parties including KSRTC.
4. Ext. P5 is the order passed after remand wherein the Tribunal formed an opinion that since the variation will adversely affect the travelling public and it will deny transport facility to the public who have already been enjoying the facility on the existing route and hence the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
5. The learned Single Judge after considering the matter on merits found that normally the matter should have been remitted back for fresh consideration, but since the field officer's report is of the year 2010 and considerable changes would have occurred in the ensuing years, the petitioner can file a fresh application, if so advised and the same should be considered untrammelled by any observations made in Exts. P1 and P5 and also with due notice to KSRTC.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Standing counsel appearing for the KSRTC.
7. The main contention urged by the appellant is with reference to the scope of remand made by this Court in judgment dated 10-10-2012 in W.P.C. No.18909 of 2012. The contention urged by the 3rd respondent is objectionable overlapping which was not considered whereas the Tribunal has proceeded to consider the matter on different aspects and formed an opinion that the variation and reduction of number of trips will adversely affect the travelling public. The contention of the appellant is that such matters are to be considered by the competent authority, especially when the Tribunal had already taken a view in favour of the petitioner by its earlier judgment dated 30-12-2011 by way of Ext. P3. That apart, the scope of remand was only for the purpose of considering whether there is objectionable overlapping and, therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the appeal on other grounds .
8. After hearing the submissions made by the parties and perusing the records, we are of the view that since the 3rd respondent's main contention was regarding objectionable overlapping, that is an issue which ought to have been considered by the Tribunal before proceeding further in the matter. Accordingly, we are of the view that the order passed by the Tribunal as per Ext. P5 ought to have been set aside and the matter is to be remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. The learned Single Judge was not justified in directing the petitioner to file fresh application seeking variation of the permit conditions.
Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside, Ext. P5 judgment in MVAA No. 332/2010 is set aside and remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. The Tribunal shall re-consider the matter afresh as expeditiously as possible, after hearing the affected parties.
ASHOK BHUSHAN , Ag. CHIEF JUSTICE ani/ A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE