DAJI TOMY Vs. TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is an existing stage carriage operator on the route Thekkemala--Kuzhumavu (via) Mundakayam. She is conducting services on the basis of a permit issued in respect of a vehicle bearing registration No. KL-5/S 4892. She has filed this writ petition challenging an order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal directing the grant of a regular permit as sought for to the fifth Respondent, subject to settlement of timings. The fifth Respondent had applied for a regular permit on the route Meloram--Valliyamkavu, via Valamannapura, 35th Mile, Mundakayam, Thekkemala and Valliyamkavu. The said application was placed before the Regional Transport Authority on 15-3-2008 and was objected to finding that the route proposed by the Petitioner overlaps the notified route Ernakulam--Thekkady for a distance of 2.5Kms. Against the said decision, the 5th Respondent filed MVAA No. 221 of 2008 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal.

(2.) According to the Petitioner, it was submitted by the 5th Respondent before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal that the overlapping noticed by the Regional Transport Authority was inevitable for the purpose of reaching Mundakayam Town and therefore, the overlapping should be treated as an unavoidable intersection. This submission, according to the Petitioner, is not proved. The Petitioner submits that the vehicles proceeding from Meloram have to deviate from 35th Mile to Valliyamkavu and it is not necessary to proceed to Mundakayam for proceeding to Valliyamkavu. However, such submission was made before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, without any bona fides. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal accepted the said contention and set aside the decision of the RTA which is Ext. P-2. Thereafter, the matter has been remanded to the RTA for consideration of the matter afresh. The Petitioner also submits that there is Anr. route Meloram to Mundakayam (via) Valamannapura, Kokkayar and Koottikkal, which does not overlap the notified route from 35th Mile to Mundakayam. The above relevant facts are also alleged to have been suppressed from the STAT by the 5th Respondent. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the STAT has remanded the matter without calling for the records or perusing them. Therefore, according to the Petitioner, the judgment of the STAT is liable to be set aside.

(3.) The learned Senior Government Pleader, on the other hand, submits that the Petitioner is Anr. operator who is conducting services on a similar route. Being an existing operator and a competitor of the fifth Respondent, he is not a person aggrieved by Ext. P-3 judgment. For the above reasons, the Petitioner has no locus standi to challenge Ext. P-3 judgment. It is also pointed out that the STAT has considered the findings of the R.T. A and has found that the overlapping is inevitable to reach Mundakayam. Therefore, it is submitted that there are no grounds to interfere with the order of remand of the STAT.