C P VIJAYAKUMAR Vs. V P MOOSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ appeals arise out of a common judgment rendered by a learned single Judge of this Court in two connected writ petitions O. P. No. 364 of 1980 and O. P. No. 417 of 1980 -- in both of which the prayer was for quashing the judgment rendered by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal dated 17-1-1980 in M. V. A. A. 263 of 1979. The learned single Judge set aside that judgment to the extent to which it granted a permit to the 1st respondent in O. P. No. 364 of 1980 and directed the State Transport Appellate Tribunal to consider afresh the question regarding the granting of a pucca permit in the place of the permit granted to the 7th respondent, which had not been availed of by the grantee, in accordance with law and in the light of the observations contained in the judgment of this Court. W. A. No. 66 of 1980 arises out of O. P. No. 364 of 1980 and the 1st respondent in the writ petition is the appellant. W. A. No. 67 of 1980 arises out of O. P. No. 417 of 1980 and the appellant before us is the 4th respondent in that writ petition.

(2.) On 3-12-1974 the Regional Transport Authority. Ernakulam published a notification inviting applications for the grant of three pucca stage carriage permits on the route Alwaye - Fort Cochin. It is common ground that it is a short route and, ordinarily, new entrants are to be preferred for the grant of the permit. After following the procedure laid down in S.57 of the M. V. Act, the Regional Transport Authority by order dated 21-12-1976 granted one permit to Applicant No. 3 (appellant in W. A. No. 66 of 1980) and the remaining two permits to two others. Two of the disappointed applicants filed appeals before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal contending that they had not been given any notice or hearing before the Regional Transport Authority took its final decision in the matter and hence the proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority were illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice. The said contention was upheld by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal by its judgment dated 11th November, 1977 and the State Transport Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority and remanded the matter to the Regional Transport Authority for fresh disposal. It would appear that an operator by name Sadenanda Shenoi had filed a suo motu "application for the grant of a stage carriage permit on the same route and that application' had been rejected by the Regional Transport Authority on the ground that there was no vacancy. Against the said rejection of his application, Sri Shenoi had filed an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. That appeal was allowed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal probably in view of its having set aside the grant made by the Regional Transport Authority as per its order dated 21-12-1976 and the suo motu application filed by Sri Shenoi was also remanded to the Regional Transport Authority for fresh disposal. Thereafter, acting in pursuance of the two orders of remand, the Regional Transport Authority clubbed together all the applications and considered them together at its sitting held on 21-6-1979. After an evaluation of the relative merits of the applicants the ' Regional Transport Authority decided to grant one permit each to respondents Nos. 5 to 7 in the two writ petitions. The application of the appellant in W. A. No. 66 of 1980 was rejected on the ground that the vehicle which he had offered in his application as being available for being put on the route was no longer available, since a pucca permit on another route had already been granted by the Regional Transport Authority in respect thereof and the resultant position was that the appellant did not have a ready vehicle. The appellant thereupon filed an appeal (M. V. A. A. 263 of 1979) before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. Pending that appeal the State Transport Appellate Tribunal granted a stay of implementation of the decision of the Regional Transport Authority sanctioning the grant of pucca permits to respondents 5 to 7 in the Original Petitions. In view of the said order of stay, the Regional Transport Authority granted three temporary permits in favour of respondents Nos. 5 to 7 for operating the service, pending disposal of the appeal. The 7th respondent however subsequently sold his vehicle and committed default of the temporary service. In the light of the said development the Regional Transport Authority by notice dated 13-9-1979 invited applications for the grant of a temporary permit in the place of K. R. E. 2637 in respect of which the 7th respondent had previously been granted a temporary permit over the route. The writ petitioner in O. P. No. 364 of 1980 applied in response to the said notice for the grant of the temporary permit and the said application was allowed by the Regional Transport Authority and the writ petitioner was granted a temporary permit over the route for the period 3-11-1979 to 2-3-1980 or till a pucca permit was issued over the route, whichever was earlier. Ext. P4 is a copy of the temporary permit so granted to the writ petitioner in O. P. No. 364 of 1980.

(3.) The petitioner in O. P. No. 417 of 1980 is an operator who had filed a suo motu application before the Regional Transport Authority for the grant of a pucca permit over the same route. His application was however rejected by the Regional Transport Authority and that order was allowed to become final, since no appeal was filed therefrom. When the State Transport Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the 7th respondent against the rejection of his suo motu application and remanded the application of the 7th respondent for fresh disposal to the Regional Transport Authority, the writ petitioner in O. P. No. 417 of 1980 appears to have suddenly woken up and at the time when the Regional Transport Authority took up the matter for fresh consideration on 21-6-1979 the writ petitioner in O. P. No. 417 of 1980 filed objections before the Regional Transport Authority contending that the suo motu application of the 7th respondent should not be considered jointly along with the other applications filed in response to a notification issued by the Regional Transport Authority under S.57(2) of the Act. The said contention put forward by the petitioner in O. P. No, 417 of 1980 was rejected by the Regional Transport Authority and, as already noticed, the Regional Transport Authority by his order evidenced by Ext. P1 dated 21-6-1979 granted one permit to the 7th respondent. The petitioner to O. P. No. 417 of 1980 thereupon filed a revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal complaining against the overruling of the objections raised, by the Regional Transport Authority. That revision petition was rejected by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal as per its order dated 17-1-1980, a copy of which has been produced and marked as Ext. P4 in O. P. No. 417 of 1980. It is under the guise of challenging the said order rejecting his revision petition that O. P. No. 417 of 1980 has been filed in this Court by the writ petitioner therein.