JOSEPH CHACKO Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY KOTTAYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In O.P. No. 32594 of 1999, there are two petitioners. They are the existing operators operating on the route Cheepumkal-Ernakulam via.Kottayam. Respondents 4 to 6 applied for the grant of the regular permits on the routes Puthuppally-Ernakulam via. Kottayam, Kaloor Bus stand-Kottayam and Karinattuvala-Ernakulam via. Kottayam respectively. Applications of respondents 4 and 5 were considered by the first respondent at its meeting held on 24-9-1998 and the application of the sixth respondent was considered by the first respondent at its meeting held on 26-11 -1998. in all these matters, the first respondent passed a uniform order rejecting the applications. Ext. P1 is the copy of the order dated 26-11-1998. It is with regard to the sixth respondent.

(2.) Against the above orders, appeals were filed before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal as M.V.A.A. Nos. 977 of 1998, 981 of 1998 and 42 of 1999. The first petitioner got himself impleaded in M.V.A. A. Nos. 981 of 1998 and 42 of 1999 and the second petitioner got himself impleaded in M.V.A.A. No. 977 of 1998. It was argued on behalf of the petitioners that the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority to reject the applications for the permits is not taken away by the new Motor Vehicles Act. S.80(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act only says that the Regional Transport Authority shall not ordinarily refuse to grant an application for permit. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal by Ext. P2 and similar orders, allowed the appeals and remanded back the matter to the Regional Transport Authority. This is what the Appellate Tribunal stated in Ext. P2: "It appears that the application for the grant of regular permit was rejected by the 1st respondent merely on the ground that the route is oversaturated. According to the Regional Transport Authority, the sector is being served by 1080 trips and there is one service every minute on the sector." According to the Appellate Tribunal, the reasoning of the Regional Transport Authority is not correct in view of the decision in Mithilesh Garg v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 443 . The State Transport Appellate Tribunal set aside the impugned order and the first respondent was directed to reconsider the application on merits.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of fifth respondent. Respondents 4 and 6 have also filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavits, they have taken the contention that the petitioners have no locus standi to file this Original Petition.