1. The petitioner is the holder of a regular permit to operate service on the route Kayamkulam – Thiruvalla (via) Kuttitheruv, Olakkettiyambalam, Mavelikkara, Mannar, Podiyadi with stage carriage bearing Registration No. KL-29-R-8089. The 4th respondent was holding a regular permit on the route Changanassery – Kayamkulam (via) Kavumbhagom, Thiruvalla, Podiyadi, Mannar, Mavelikkara, Thattarambalam, Muttom, Evoor and Eruva in respect of the stage carriage bearing Registration No. KL-06-H-1026.

2. The 4th respondent applied for curtailment of the route from Mavelikkara to Kayamkulam (via) Muttom, Evoor and Eruva, before the Regional Transport Authority, Alappuzha, the 1st respondent. However, the same was rejected. Thereupon, the 4th respondent filed an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and the Tribunal remanded the matter to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent in its meeting held on 30.01.2019 granted curtailment of the route sought by the 4th respondent. On curtailment of the route, a major portion of the route falls within the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority, Pathanamthitta, the 3rd respondent.

3. Later, the 4th respondent filed an application for extension of the service from Mavelikkara – Kayamkulam through Kuttitheruvu. The petitioner filed Ext.P4 objection before the 3rd respondent, the primary authority, pointing out that it is a highly saturated route. The 3rd respondent, requested the 1st respondent to consider the question of grant of concurrence for extension sought by the 4th respondent. The 1st respondent, by Ext.P6 order, granted concurrence. The relevant potion thereof reads as follows:

                  “Order No. C2/1070344/2025/A Dtd. 09.04.2025 Item No. 41

                  This is the request of Secretary, RTA Pathanamthitta for prior concurrence of this authority for variation of regular permit in respect of stage carriage KL 06 H 1026 to operate on the route Changanassery Perunna Bus Stand - Mavelikara - Thengana Via Laikkad, Idinjilam, Kavumbhagam, Thiruvalla, Kuttapuzha Muthoor, Bethelpadi, Paippad, Kunnumpuram, Thengana, Kavumbhagom, Parumala for the portion lying under the jurisdiction of RTA Alappuzha. Secretary RTA reported that the portion from Mavelikara PBS to Kayamkulam PBS via Court Jn, Olakettiyambalam, Randamkutty and Railway Station lying under the jurisdiction of RTA Alappuzha. A distance of 3 Kms from Park Jn to Kuttitheruvu (2nd mile) overlaps Kayamkulam Punalur and Kayamkulan Kulathupuzha partial exclusion scheme vide GO.MS.156/67/PW dtd.27.07.1967. Kayamkulam Kuttitheruvu Mavelikara route is a well served route. The variation may not be beneficial for the regular passengers and students since the only trip at noon.

                  Time available at Kayamkulam PBS is only 20 minutes which is insufficient for the meal and for the rest of crew members. The original permit was issued by RTA Alappuzha and the route was CNR: KLHC010648362025 2026:KER:70317 WP(C) NO. 28981 OF 2025 ..4.. Changanassery Perunna PBS - Kayamkulam via Laikkad, Kavumbhagam, Thiruvalla, Thengana, Podiyadi, Mannar, Mavelikara, Thattarambalam, Muttom, Evoor and Eruva. The permit holder acquired order from STAT (MVAA No.264/2018 dtd.03.11.2018) and the RTA board held on 30.01.2019 granted the curtailment. Actually the Muttom - Evoor – Eruva - Kayamkulam route is ill served one and now the LSGD has arranged KSRTC service in this route under GRAMAVANDI scheme. Kuttitheruvu - Kayamkulam route is almost saturated. There is no sufficient time gap for a new trip, which may leads to unhealthy competition among bus operators and crews. Hence concurrence is granted subject to the effect of Clause 5(c) of Notification No. 42/2009/Trans dtd. 14.07.2009 and 08/2017/Trans dtd. 23.08.2017 without prejudice to the right of the primary authority.”

                  (underlining supplied)

4. The petitioner submits that, although the 1st respondent found that the extension sought by the 4th respondent is through a highly saturated route, would result in unhealthy competition among the operators, and that there is no sufficient time gap for a new trip, it granted concurrence despite its own findings. Challenging Ext.P6, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

5. Heard Sri.K.V. Gopinathan Nair, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Sajeev Kumar K. Gopal, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent and Sri.T.S. Sarath, the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3.

6. This Court, by order dated 05.08.2025, stayed further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P6 for a period of six weeks. The said interim order is being extended from time to time.

7. On 06.01.2026, this Court, directed the 1st respondent to file an affidavit as to how Ext.P6 order came to be passed granting the concurrence despite the order suggesting the contrary.

8. A counter affidavit dated 09.02.2026 was filed by the 2nd respondent. However, this Court, by order dated 25.02.2026 observed that the counter affidavit is nothing but reproduction of what is stated in Ext.P6 order without indicating as to whether the authority intended to grant concurrence or rejection. Accordingly, this Court directed the 2nd respondent to file a fresh affidavit indicating as to what the authority intended, based on the reasons stated in Ext.P6.

                  9. Accordingly, an additional affidavit dated 24.03.2026 was filed by the 2nd respondent. Paragraph 5 thereof reads as follows:

                  “It is submitted that certain technical and other reasons prevailing in the district has been mentioned in the Exhibit P6 decision in order to help the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority to conclude the application pending before it. These timings were included in order to take an appropriate decision while considering the application for variation of permit. The actual facts prevailing in the District alone has been explained in Exhibit P6 so as to take a final decision on the application for variation of permit. There is no malafides or any other intention on the part of this respondent in passing Exhibit P6 order. The above submission may be accepted and the Writ Petition may be dismissed.”

10. Sri.Gopinathan Nair, the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act) and submitted that an application to vary the conditions of any permit, by the inclusion of a new route shall be treated as an application for grant of a new permit and that the authority should be satisfied that such variation will serve the convenience of the public. The learned counsel contended that, going by Ext.P6 order, the variation may not be beneficial to regular passengers and students and that the route for which the 4th respondent seeks extension of service, is almost saturated. Therefore, the concurrence granted vide Ext.P6 is contrary to public convenience. Accordingly, it is contended that Ext.P6 order is liable to be set aside.

11. Sri. Sajeev Kumar K. Gopal, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent submits that the writ petition is not maintainable and the petitioner has got an efficacious alternate remedy by way of revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The learned counsel would submit that the petitioner has not preferred a revision within the time stipulated under Section 90 of the Act and on finding that the said remedy is foreclosed, has preferred this writ petition. The learned counsel contended that Ext.P6 order is not contrary to the findings, as the 1st respondent after narrating the facts, took a conscious decision to grant concurrence. The learned counsel further contended that it is trite law that over saturation of service is not a ground to refuse permit or variation. Therefore, it is contended that the 1st respondent has rightly taken the decision to grant concurrence for extension of service.

12. The learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that the 1st respondent has only narrated the actual facts prevailing in the District so as to take a final decision by the primary authority on the application of the 4th respondent for extension of service.

13. On going through Ext.P6 order, it can be seen that the 1st respondent granted concurrence after recording facts and findings which militate against the grant of extension of service. The narration of facts and the findings in Ext.P6 would suggest that the 4th respondent is not entitled to the grant of extension of service. However, despite recording such adverse findings, the 1st respondent proceeded to grant concurrence. This indicates non application of mind on the part of the 1st respondent. The decision in Ext.P6 is contrary to the findings recorded therein and amounts to an improper exercise of jurisdiction and violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case to interfere in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and the petitioner need not be relegated to avail alternate remedy.

Accordingly, Ext.P6 order is set aside. There will be a direction to the Regional Transport Authority, Alappuzha, the 1st respondent to consider the request of the Regional Transport Authority, Pathanamthitta, the 3rd respondent seeking concurrence on the application for extension of service in respect of the vehicle bearing Registration No. KL-06-H-1026 submitted by the 4th respondent afresh and pass orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of.