USHAKUMARI Vs. ABDUL AZEEZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge in O.P.22830/98 dated 9 -2 -1999.Respondent No.1 in the Original Petition is the appellant herein.She submitted an application for grant of a regular permit to operate on Kozhikode city route Moozhikkal city stop under the provisions of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act,1988.The appellant's application for grant of a regular permit was considered by the Regional Transport Authority,Kozhikode as per Ext.P2 and the same was rejected.In the said order it is stated that no vehicle is offered and that the route is saturated and overlapped the nationalised route.It is further stated that the grant of permit will cause unhealthy competition and danger to public life and is not in conformity with S.91 of the Motor Vehicles Act.Against the order of the second respondent,the appellant filed a statutory appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal as M.V.A.A.288/98.The Tribunal called for the records of the case from the second respondent and perused the same.The Tribunal,under Ext.P6 order allowed the appeal and directed the Regional Transport Authority,Kozhikode to grant regular permit to the appellant as prayed for.Aggrieved against Ext.P6,first respondent has filed the present Original Petition.The main grievance of the first respondent as mentioned in para.4 of the Original Petition is as follows: "If the time is settled without hearing the petitioner that would harvestly affect the interests of the petitioner.Hence the petitioner wanted to get himself impleaded as a party in Ext.P3 appeal." Thus it is seen that the first respondent has attacked Ext.P6 order that the Tribunal did not consider the question regarding the vehicle.In the Original Petition the appellant filed a detailed counter affidavit pointing out that the Original Petition itself is not maintainable and that the first respondent has no locus standi to challenge Ext.P6 on any reason.It was also submitted that the timing in respect of the service is not so far fixed and the same can be settled after hearing the first respondent also and that the Original Petition itself is virtually premature.

(2.) THE learned single Judge,by the impugned judgment quashed Ext.P6 and remanded the case to the Tribunal observing that Ext.P2 contains sufficient reasons to reject a permit and the Tribunal should have adverted to each and every aspects of the grounds stated in Ext.P2.It is also observed that oversaturation and competition will affect certainly the public life.

(3.) THE Writ Appeal was admitted and this court granted stay of pronouncing the judgment in M.V.A.A.288/98 by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal,Ernakulam,if the same was not pronounced as on 18 -6 -1999.In this appeal respondent No.1 has filed a detailed counter affidavit reiterating the contentions raised in the Original Petition.Along with the appeal,the appellant has also filed Annexure Al,which is the explanatory note of the notification issued by the Government of Kerala dated 18 -2 -1993.Per contra,learned counsel for the first respondent raised five contentions before us.According to the first respondent,the existing operators have no right to object the grant of a permit.It is further submitted that the time cannot be settled without hearing the first respondent and if the time is settled without giving an opportunity to the first respondent/petitioner,that will adversely affect the interests of the first respondent.It is further submitted that the applicant cannot be granted a permit unless she is ready with the vehicle.It is also submitted in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent in the Writ Appeal that the appellant has fraudulently incorporated certain data in the application which she had filed for the regular permit.On the other hand Mr.Gopinathan Nair submitted that the Original Petition itself is not maintainable on law or on facts.