JUDGMENT P. Shanmugam, J. 1. The above Original Petition is filed by an Association of private bus operators in Ernakulam District and a stage carriage operator holding a regular permit. They have filed the O.P. to quash the proceedings of the R. T. A. whereby in order to reduce the congestion and accidents on the M. G. Road the city service buses (194 Nos.) traversing Sahodaran Ayyappan Road and which have to go through Menaka were directed to go through the old Thevara Road. 2. According to the petitioners the direction of the R. T. A. is in effect alters the permit granted to operate on the fixed route and that the same had been issued without notice to the operators. It is the case of the petitioners that the R. T. A. has no authority or jurisdiction for the variation of the route. They further contended that the route directed by the R. T. A. is too narrow and dangerous and this has been overlooked by the authority. 3. Learned Govt. Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the proceedings had been initiated only to reduce the traffic congestion and that there is no question of variation of the route. The permit conditions to operate on a particular route are subject to regulatory and traffic diversions. There is no violation of the permit conditions in this case. 4. The proceedings of the R. T. A. were initiated at the instance of the Traffic Improvement Committee's suggestion for easing the flow of traffic on M. G. Road. The 194 operators going through the M. G. Road are not affected by this traffic regulation since the proposed deviation does not violate the conditions of the permit. It is made clear in the R. T. A. proceedings that the deviation does not include a fresh route nor result in the change of time schedule or fares mentioned in the original permit. 5. As a matter of fact, earlier the Commissioner of Police had directed the operators of buses who were operating through the M. G. Road to take their vehicle through the Old Thevara Road. This was challenged before this Court in O.P.No. 13864/ 95. This court by order dated 1-9-1995 directed that the Commissioner of Police cannot issue oral instructions for such a diversion. This was challenged before this Court in O.P.No. 13864/ 95. This court by order dated 1-9-1995 directed that the Commissioner of Police cannot issue oral instructions for such a diversion. The R. T. A. by proceedings dated 1-9-1995 has now issued the direction for the said diversion. Now the question is whether such a diversion of the route amounts to variation of permit conditions. Almost in a similar situation this Court in Oommen v. Road Traffic Board ( 1958 KLT 110 ) was dealing with a case where consequent on the introduction of one way traffic and construction of a bridge the bus operating on a particular route was diverted. Therefore, the operator filed an application for regulation of certain services in the Kottayam Town Roads and refixation of starting and terminal points. The same was objected to by the other operators on the ground that this is introduction of a new route and consequent increase in the number of services. While dealing with this question the learned Judge held that the said application was not an application for variation of any conditions of the permit by inclusion of a new route or routes or a new area. The routes mentioned are within the town road area. At the most, the order gives a right to go in the same route a little longer. This certainly is not inclusion of a new route or routes or a new area as contemplated under Clause.8 of S.57. Nor is the case of increasing the services above the specified maximum. The Court also held that there was no variation of the transport facilities materially different from those authorised by the original permit. 6. A Division Bench of this Court in Chokli Moideenkutty v. S. T. A. T., Ernakulam ( AIR 1989 Ker. 271 ) has taken the view that if on account of subsequent traffic regulations, motor vehicles are not permitted to go by the particular road contemplated by the notified route and traffic is permitted by other alternative road, such alterations cannot be regarded as having the effect of varying the notified route itself. The Division Bench also took note of the fact that such alterations within the limits of the city resulting from traffic regulations are minimal and are not variations of the route. The Division Bench also took note of the fact that such alterations within the limits of the city resulting from traffic regulations are minimal and are not variations of the route. The Division Bench further held that the operation on a notified route becomes impossible as a consequence of certain traffic regulations and if the alternative lines of the route that may be required to be followed substantially affect the integrity of the route, it would amount to varying the route. Applying the principles laid down by the Division Bench the alteration of a route within the city due to traffic regulations is minimum. If the petitioners are not permitted to go through M. G. Road and they are directed to go by an alternate road as a measure of traffic regulation, the said diversion cannot be regarded as having the effect of varying the notified route itself. It is a common knowledge that the M. G. Road which is the artery of Ernakulam town is congested beyond its capacity and diversion of these buses through the old Thevara Road is only a traffic regulation and does not in any way affect the notified route of the operators. 7. This diversion would not amount to variation of the permit under S.72. Therefore, the question of following the procedure of issuing notice to the operators would not arise. The impugned order is intended for the public interest and all the city service buses are uniformly treated by this diversion. In the above circumstances I do not find any merit in the contentions raised by the petitioners. Accordingly the Original Petition is dismissed.