KISSAN ROADWAYS Vs. R T A MALAPPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 4th respondent in each of these cases is the same. He is an operator of a stage carriage on the route Areekode to Karulai under a pucca permit. He sought to change the halting place of his stage carriage from Areekode to Karulai. He filed an application in that behalf before the Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram, who is the second respondent in each of these writ petitions. This was objected to by the first petitioner in O. P. No. 1469 of 1979 and some others. By Ext. P4 proceedings the second respondent rejected the application as aforesaid for the reason that the change of halting place will curtail the existing facilities of the students of Mampad College. Ext. P4 proceedings were on 27-9-1978. Thereafter the 4th respondent submitted Ext. P5 application dated 26-10-1978 stating that the change of halting place would not in any manner affect the time of arrival of the bus in the Mampad College area either in the morning or in the evening. In Ext. P5 the 4th respondent further stated that the time the bus arrives in that area both in the morning and in the evening would be the same as obtained at present. By Ext. P6 proceedings dated 19-12-1978 the second respondent sanctioned the request to change the halting place. This was after overruling the objection preferred by the petitioner in O. P. No. 1453 of 1979 and some others but, according to the petitioner in O. P. No. 1469 of 1979, without hearing the first petitioner therein. Whatever that may be, the petitioner in O. P. No. 1453 of 1979 and the first petitioner in the other O. P. preferred revision petitions against Ext. P6 order referred to above. The revisions preferred by these persons were dismissed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, the third respondent in these writ petitions as per Ext P8 order in both these writ petitions. It is contended before me that Ext P6 order of the second respondent and Ext. P8 order of the third respondent are without jurisdiction in so far as the second respondent has no power to review its earlier order marked in both the writ petitions as Ext. P4 and also for the reason that the power exercised is one which falls under S.57(8) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

(2.) In answer to the first contention it is submitted on behalf of the 4th respondent that the power exercised by the second respondent is not one of reviewing its earlier order. It is submitted that though Ext. P5 request refers to the earlier application and prays that the decision on the earlier application maybe reconsidered, the power exercised in allowing Ext. P5 request is one which, according to the learned counsel for the 4th respondent, falls under R.242 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. It is also submitted that the same may, as argued on behalf of the petitioners in these cases, fall under R.238 of the said Rules. According to the learned counsel for the 4th respondent, in so far as there is power conferred on the second respondent under R.238 or the Rules to specify in the permit the exact place and point from which the daily service shall start and the exact place and point at which the daily service shall terminate, the second respondent authority could exercise that power from time to time notwithstanding any decision taken in that behalf on any earlier occasion. Shortly put the submission is that no finality is to be attached to an order passed as regards the decision that the halting place shall be at one or the other of the two termini and that the second respondent has, notwithstanding its earlier decision power to change the halting place, on being satisfied that circumstances exist and warrant the same.

(3.) It is also submitted in this connection that the power exercised by the second respondent authority, the Regional Transport Authority, under R.242 of the Rules to change of halting place would necessarily involve exercise of the power to change the schedule of timings, a power that could be exercised from time to time and the only restriction whereon is that other interested permit holders should be afforded an opportunity to be heard as regards the proposed change of timings, as pointed out by this court in C. T. Service v. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority. Palghat. 1973 KLT 266 and R. K. V. Motors and Timbers Ltd. v. Regional Transport Authority, Trivandrum, 1968 KLT 73 .