KURUVILLA CHACKO Vs. RTA KOTTAYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We see little substance in this appeal.

(2.) R.8 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles (State Transport Undertakings) Rules made under S.68(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act read thus at the relevant time:

(3.) The appellant is an operator on the Kottayam Ernakulam (via Vaikom) route which is one of the routes from which private operators are to be eliminated under the approved scheme, all existing permits being cancelled. The Regional Transport Authority, regarding R.8 as contemplating a show cause notice, issued to the appellant the notice, Ext. P1 dated 23-1-1968, asking him to file a written objection against the cancellation of his permit within seven days of the date of the receipt of the notice failing which, it said, it would be presumed that the appellant had nothing to say and the matter would accordingly be decided ex pane. This notice, it would appear, was received by the appellant only on 29-1-1968. Meanwhile, on 27-1-1968, the Regional Transport Authority had sent the appellant the notice, Ext. P 2, to the effect that the matter would be taken up for consideration at a meeting to be held on 2-2-1968. On the appellant's own showing he appeared at that meeting and took the objection that he had not had the seven days' time for filing a written objection vouchsafed by the notice, Ext. P1. The matter was therefore not taken up on that day. Subsequently, on 21-2-1968 the Regional Transport Authority issued the notice, Ext. P3, to the appellant stating that the matter would be taken up for consideration at a meeting to be held on 27-2-1968. This notice was received by the appellant on 24-2-1968, and he appeared at the meeting on 27-2-1968 where, according to his own statement, he merely reiterated his former objection and showed no cause why his permit should not be cancelled. Oh the same day, namely, 27-2-1968, the impugned order, Ext. P4, cancelling the permit was made.