MOHAMMEDALI Vs. ELIAS MATHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is filed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge in O.P. No. 9605 of 2002 reported in 2002 (3) KIT 434. Appellant is third respondent in the original petition. First petitioner in the original petition is an existing operator on the strength of a regular permit in respect of the vehicle, KL-9E, 1017 on the route Mannarkkad-Malampuzha. The second petitioner in the original petition is existing operator on the route Thathamangalam-Malampuzha.

(2.) The appellant applied for fresh permit for operating on the route Kondotty-Palakkad via. Edavannapara, Areekod, Manjeri, Pandikkad, Melattur, Unniyal, Alanellur, Mannarkkad, Kalladikode and Olavakkode. The route Kondotty - Palakkad is in an inter-district out. It covers a distance of 121 kms. Out of the total distance of 121 kms. 63.05 kms. lie in Malappuram District and the balance 57.5 kms. lie in the Palakkad District. The appellant applied for the permit in the Malappuram Regional Transport Authority. The Malappuram Regional Transport Authority took the view that in this case, the main focus of portion is in Palakkad District and rejected the application. Against that order, the present appellant preferred an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. During the pendency of the appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, the petitioners in the original petition got themselves impleaded. The learned State Transport Appellate Tribunal found that the view taken by the Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram is wrong and held that since major portion of the route lies in Malappuram District, the application for permit can be filed in the District. The petitioners in the original petition, then wanted that the timings can be settled only after hearing them. After setting aside order, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal directed the Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram to grant permit to the appellant, after settling the timings. It is against that the original petition was filed. The contention taken before the learned Single Judge was that the Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram has no jurisdiction regarding the settlement of timings.

(3.) We heard learned Counsel for the appellant and the respondents and also the learned Government Pleader.