The petitioner was the holder of a regular permit operating service in the route Valiyavila-Medical College via., Thirumala, Poojappura, Karamana, Killippalam, Thampanoor, Bakery Junction, Palayam, PM Junction, Pattom and Kesavadasapuram. The petitioner sought for an extension from Valiyavila to Vayalikada, by which there was an enhancement of distance by about 8 kms. The petitioner's application was considered by the Regional Transport Officer (RTA) and rejected. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Tribunal, which concluded in Ext.P3. Ext.P3 allowed the appeal and directed consideration of the application on account of the Tribunal having found that the filed officer's report would justify the extension sought for as also noticing the benefits which would enure to the travelling public. The Tribunal in Ext.P3 clearly found that, the comparative hardship have not been looked into and W.P.(C) No.14101 of 2013 - K 2 hence a remand was made. 2. The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (K.S.R.T.C), who is the 3rd respondent was before this Court in Ext.P4, raising a contention of overlapping, which according to them would offend a scheme applicable to the area of Trivandrum. Ext.P3 was assailed on the ground that, the K.S.R.T.C was not heard either by the RTA or by the Tribunal. This Court by Ext.P4 remanded the matter to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT), Ernakulam, to re-consider the matter. The Tribunal by Ext.P5, rejected the appeal of the petitioner.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner assails Ext.P5 on the ground that, the Tribunal has totally misunderstood the scope of remand. The Tribunal ought to have considered the contentions of the K.S.R.T.C and there was absolutely no ground to consider whether the variation sought for was correct or not. The Tribunal according to the learned Counsel, found the variation to be on various aspects while the application sought was only for an extension of route by 8 kms.
W.P.(C) No.14101 of 2013 - K 3
4. On a reading of Ext.P4, it is clear that this Court had directed consideration of the matter afresh and there was no rider made as to confining the consideration to the overlapping pleaded by the K.S.R.T.C. But, however, Ext.P5 shows that the specific ground raised by the K.S.R.T.C has not been considered at all by the Tribunal. This Court normally would have remanded the matter for fresh consideration; but, however, is not inclined to resort to a remand especially since, the application and the field officer's report is of the year 2010 and considerable changes would have occurred in the ensuing years. In such circumstance, the petitioner would be entitled to file fresh application if so advised and that the same shall be considered untrammelled by any observations made in Exts.P1 and P5 and also with due notice to K.S.R.T.C.
With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB