T S JOSEPH Vs. SUNNY K JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner as well as the 1st respondent had made applications before the Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam (the 2nd respondent) for the grant of temporary permits on the route Kottayam - Changanacherry. It would appear that by the time the application came on for hearing before the 2nd respondent on 21-4-1970 the vehicle specified by the 1st respondent in his application had ceased to be available and he therefore offered to furnish another vehicle in its place. Objection was taken by the petitioner that the 1st respondent's application in respect of the vehicle sought to be substituted should be treated as a fresh application and that therefore that application should not be taken up for consideration at the meeting held on 21-4-1970 since the practice of the regional Transport Authority was to take up for consideration only applications which had been received at least 10 days prior to the date of consideration. THE Regional Transport Authority by its proceedings evidenced by Ext. P1, adjourned the subject to its next meeting for consideration of both the applications made by the petitioner as well as by the 1st respondent and while doing so it directed the Secretary of the Regional Transport. Authority to grant to the 1st respondent an interim temporary permit.

(2.) THE 1st respondent preferred an appeal before the state Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam challenging the Regional transport Authority's proceedings evidenced by Ext. P1, and moved an interlocutory application before the Tribunal praying that a direction should be given to the Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam to issue a temporary permit for his bus on the route Kottayam - Changanacherry pending disposal of the appeal. On the said application which was dated 12th May, 1970 the State transport Appellate Tribunal passed orders on the same day exparte in the following terms: "heard Advocate. Notice 1st respondent is directed to issue a temporary permit for the bus of the petitioner KLK. 9816, on the route Kottayam Changanacherry, for 4 months or till the disposal of the appeal, whichever is earlier. " THE petitioner has brought this writ petition seeking to quash Ext. P5 and praying for the issuance of a writ of prohibition restraining the State Transport Appellate Tribunal from taking up and disposing of the appeal petition, evidenced by Ext. P2.

(3.) THE jurisdiction of the State Transport Appellate tribunal is strictly confined to the powers expressly conferred on it by the provisions contained in the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed thereunder. In view of my having held that the appeal filed by the 1st respondent is not maintainable under S. 64 (1) (a) of the Act the petitioner's prayer for the relief of the issuance of a writ of prohibition from taking and disposing of the appeal petition evidenced by Ext. P2, has to be granted. It also follows as a necessary consequence of the above findings regarding non-maintainability of the appeal that the order Ext P5, passed by the Tribunal, was completely devoid of jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed on that ground.