MOHANAN Vs. R T A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was granted a temporary permit to operate on the route Kundannoor - Kundannoor (circular) as per the decision of the first respondent in Ext. P3. Ext. P3 says that the petitioner was granted a temporary permit for four months subject to settlement of timings. The decision in Ext. P3 was taken by the first respondent by circulation. The third respondent is an operator of stage carriage with regular permit on the route Vyttila - Vyttila circular. The main contention taken by the third respondent before the fourth respondent Appellate Tribunal is that there was no positive finding regarding the temporary need on the above route to grant a temporary permit to the petitioner under S.87 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In Ext. P9 order of the fourth respondent Appellate Tribunal the grant of the temporary permit of the petitioner was set aside. The main reason stated for setting aside the grant in favour of the petitioner is that the first respondent without giving a positive finding of a temporary need and without applying its mind granted the permit. The fourth respondent also held that the decision was taken by circulation among the members of the first respondent and there is nothing in the files to indicate that the Secretary to the first respondent got approval of the Chairman to circulate the application among the members under R.130 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules.

(2.) Sri. P. Gopalakrishna Menon, learned counsel for the petitioner strongly relied on various rulings of the Supreme Court and of this Court to drive home the point that the third respondent has no locus standi to challenge the grant of temporary permit to the petitioner under the Act. The further grievance of the petitioner is that even though the fourth respondent had referred to the various rulings cited by the petitioner, he has chosen to ignore the law laid down by the various rulings and proceeded to interfere with the grant of the permit to the petitioner. Therefore, according to him, the fourth respondent misdirected itself to the legal point and therefore, erred in interfering with the order of the first respondent in granting the temporary permit. On the other hand, it was contended by learned counsel for the third respondent that under S.87 of the Act temporary permits can be granted only to meet a particular temporary need and should be specifically shown in the application filed by the operator. In the application filed by the petitioner no such need was mentioned. Ext. P3 order granting the temporary permit for fourth months is also bereft of any finding of the temporary need. The fourth respondent also had the advantage by perusing the files of the first respondent and found that the files also did not disclose the existence of any temporary need. Thus, it was argued that Ext. P9 does not require any interference by this Court under Art.226 or 227 of the Constitution.

(3.) In order to understand the scope and ambit of the argument put forward by both sides it is necessary to refer some of the decisions cited at the bar. In Mithilesh Garg v. Union of India ( AIR 1992 SC 443 ) the Supreme Court considered the legality of granting permits to the stage carriage operators under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Supreme Court upheld the liberalisation policy adopted and approved by the Government in the matter of granting permits to every operator who applies for the same on the ground that the transport system in a State is meant for the benefit and convenience of the public. The petitioners in the above case were existing stage carriage operators on different routes. They challenged the grant of regular permits to various operators on the same route. Dealing with the above question the Supreme Court held that the existing operators cannot have any grievance against the granting of permits to new entrants.