JUDGMENT :

Shaji P. Chaly, J.

The above appeals are filed by one Shihab, who is the appellant in M.V.A.A. No. 68 of 2020 on the files of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal; who was respondent No. 4 and 3 respectively in W.P.(C) Nos. 20705 and 21369 of 2022, challenging the common judgment of the learned single Judge dated 02.08.2022, whereby the writ petitions were allowed and the order passed by the Tribunal was set aside and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for consideration afresh, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioners as well as the appellant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Parties and exhibits are referred to as in W.A.No. 1251 of 2022.

2. Brief material facts for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:

The appellant has a regular permit to operate the service of a long distance route of Kozhikode-Pattambi having a route length of 84.1 kms. He submitted an application for variation of the permit under Section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘Act, 1988’ for short), by extending the route from Chemmad to Parappanangadi having a distance of 6.4 kms, which according to the appellant, is not a notified route, and also for permission to operate the service as Limited Stop Ordinary Service.

3. It is submitted that the application so submitted has been enquired through the Field Officer, and the enquiry report revealed that;

(i) no portion on the route is curtailed, and the extension of existing route from Chemmad to Parappanangadi will be beneficial to the travelling public;

(ii) the variation sought is beneficial for long distance passengers and there is no Limited Stop Ordinary Service at present through Pattambi-Kozhikode route and Parappanangadi-Pattambi route;

(iii) necessary stops have been suggested and proposed in the application for avoiding any inconvenience to the short distance passengers and students; and

(iv) there is no virgin portion or notified sector included and clause 19 of G.O.(P) No. 8/2017/Trans dated 23.03.2017 is not violated.

4. However, the Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram, respondent No.6 in W.A.No. 1251 of 2022, considered the application and it was rejected by Exhibit P5 order dated 07.01.2020 stating that the conversion of the vehicle to a Limited Stop Ordinary Service will defeat the traveling facilities of short-distance passengers and students; and as per clause 19 of the notified scheme, right to increase the trip on the notified route or portions will be reserved exclusively for the State Transport Undertaking.

5. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed M.V.A.A. No. 68 of 2020 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal under Section 89(1)(a) of the Act, 1988. The Tribunal allowed the appeal as per Exhibit P7 order dated 30.10.2020 holding as follows:

“4. The variation sought for consists of extension of route from Chemmad to Parappanangadi and conversion of service from Ordinary Service to Limited Stop Ordinary Service. The variation sought for was rejected holding that the conversion of service from Ordinary Service to Limited Stop Ordinary Service would defeat the travelling facilities of short distance passengers, especially students. There is no discussion about the extension sought for in the impugned order. The route enquiry report has been called for and it has been produced as Ext.P2. The column No.15 of the report would show that it is absolutely in favour of the appellant. The route enquiry officer by stating reasons specifically stated that the conversion as well as extension is the interest of travelling public. In the report the officer has stated that there is no overlapping at all. In these circumstances, the first respondent ought to have granted variation sought for. No other legal impediment in granting variation has been stated by the first respondent. Hence, I am of the view that the appellant is entitled for variation sought for.

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The first