Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 19855
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J
BALACHANDRAN PILLAI – Appellant
Versus
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 9862 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.O.D.SIVADAS
For the Respondents: SMT.SURYA BINOY, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
Judicial review applies to apparent errors in administrative decisions regarding transport permits.
Headnote:The petitioner, an existing stage carriage operator, challenges the conditions imposed by the Regional Transport Authority regarding the variation of permit under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Appellate Tribunal initially approved the appeal but later issued a review order that overturned its previous decision. The Court finds judicial errors in the Appellate Tribunal's orders and mandates prompt reconsideration of the initial appeal. The decision concludes with the specific instruction to expedite reassessment.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's challenge on permit variation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. judicial review of administrative orders. (Para 4 , 5) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is an existing stage carriage operator on the route Kundara – Anchalumoodu – Kollam. While granting variation of the permit by curtailing a route portion, the 1st respondent imposed a condition to settle the timings as per Ext.P6 order. Aggrieved by the said condition, the petitioner preferred Ext.P7 appeal under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal.
2. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, by Ext.P8 judgment, allowed the appeal setting aside Ext.P6 order and directed the 2nd respondent to reconsider the application of the petitioner for variation of permit on merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
3. Aggrieved by Ext.P8 judgment, to the extent it set aside the grant of variation of the permit, the petitioner preferred Ext.P9 review petition. The Appellate Tribunal, by Ext.P10 order, allowed the review petition. Though the Tribunal observed that curtailment of two trips does not warrant a change in the entire timings, it set aside Ext.P6 order. This writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P8 and P10.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.
5. It is seen from Ext.P10 that while allowing the review petition, the Appellate Tribunal set aside Ext.P6 order granting variation of the permit. It is pertinent to note that in Ext.P10 the Tribunal also observed that curtailment of two trips does not warrant any change in the entire timings. Despite the said observation, the Tribunal set aside Ext.P6 order. I find that there is apparent error on the face of the record in Ext.P10 order, which requires a judicial review. Accordingly, Exts.P8 and P10 are set aside. The Appellate Tribunal is directed to consider and dispose of Ext.P7 appeal as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
