Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Having considered the pleadings and submissions, writ court in the impugned judgment ordered thus:

"2. It is apparent from a perusal of Ext.P6 judgment that the primary contention raised by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority was that there was a fear of animal attacks on stage carriages plying on the route, since that portion of the route was in the proximity of a forest area, where wild elephants often cross the road. The report of the enquiry officer, that was relied upon by the Appellate Authority, however showed that there had been no information received about any attack by wild animals on stage carriages, and further that there were vehicles plying on the route without any problems. It is also relevant to note that there was no material produced by the petitioner, at any stage, to suggest that there were frequent animal attacks/elephant attacks on vehicles operating on the said route. Under the said circumstances, Ext.P6 judgment passed by the Appellate Authority (State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam) cannot be said to be erroneous, either in fact or in law, for the purposes of warranting an interference with the same in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."

6. Assailing to the correctness of the judgment impugned, instant appeal is filed on the following grounds:

"B. The learned Single Judge erred in finding that when Exhibit P3 judgment of STAT find that the intimation of the forest official is to be considered and when reconsidering the matter reversing the judgment, nothing is mentioned regarding the letter of the forest officials.

C. When there is fear that the field officer consider the matter of variation, if there is any claim that the elephants are on the road and when protection is asked from the forest officials and the report obtained of the M.V.Inspector, necessary report ought to have obtained from the Forest Officials, rather than obtaining a report of the field officer under the Motor Vehicles Act, which was not considered by the learned single Judge. D. It is necessary to consider the variation from Inchathottikkadavu instead of Inchathotty to avoid the fear of wild animals which was missed to be considered by the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge ought to have compared the safety and alleged convenience of public."

9. There is only one stage carriage operating in Inchathotty area. Tribunal has taken note of the effect of curtailment and also the proposed extension sought for, and held that the request for variation permit, if granted, would affect the travelling facility of the public, including the tribals residing in the Inchathotty area. Thus, we find that both the authorities have found that the variation sought for is not in public interest and that the appellant's version that frequent elephant attacks on the vehicles is also not proved. On the point of elephant attacks, the field officer has reported that no such incident was reported to the Forest Department. As rightly observed by the writ court, there are no grounds warranting interference with Ext.P6 judgment dated 18.11.2019 in M.V.A.A.No.30 of 2019.