SABU Vs. R T O TRIVANDRUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the registered owner of stage carriage KL. 01/P.5353. The said vehicle is a tax paid vehicle and not covered with any permit. Another stage carriage bearing registration number KL-1/D.9875 was operating on the route Attingal-Vaikom. The said operator defaulted service and a vacancy thus arose. The route is an intra-district route. Petitioner, therefore, made an application for the grant of a substituted temporary permit for four months in respect of the petitioner's stage carriage KL. 01/P.5353. Ext. P1 is the application. In Ext. P1 application, the petitioner pointed out that the temporary permit was in the substituted vacancy. Petitioner also pointed out that in view of the Sabrimala festival season, Christmas and Id-Ul-Fittar, there is temporary need.

(2.) Ext. P1 application came for consideration before the Regional Transport Authority, Thiruvananthapuram. The Regional Transport Authority dismissed the application for temporary permit as follows: "Temporary need under S.87(1) not substantiated. Disallowed". Ext. P2 is the order. Against Ext. P2 order, the petitioner preferred Ext. P3 appeal, which was numbered as M.V.A.A. No. 841 of 1999. The appeal is pending before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam. Along with the appeal, petitioner preferred M.P. No. 2274 of 1999. In Para.3 of the affidavit accompanying the petition, the petitioner has stated thus: "The reason stated for rejection of the application is that there is no temporary need in existence. It is submitted that I have specifically pointed out before the first respondent that the application is in a surrendered vacancy. The Christmas season and Id-Ul-Fittar are in the offing in addition to the on going Sabarimala festival season. Hence, the impugned decision is liable to be set aside". Hence pending disposal of the appeal, petitioner applied for a temporary permit for 20 days in respect of the same route. The petition was moved before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal passed the following order:

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was not proper on the part of the Appellate Tribunal to state that only when the appeal is heard, it can be found out whether the need is proper or not. Learned counsel brought to my notice, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1988. These Rules came into force on the Ist day of February, 1988. It deals with the procedure in the State Transport Appellate Tribunal regarding the appeal or revision petitions. R.10 of the above Rules deals with stay of suspension of the impugned order or order of direction. It is as follows: