MOIDEENKUTTY Vs. R T O MALAPPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed an application for a regular stage carriage permit on a long distance route covering four regions. The application was presented before the Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram (for short ' the R.T.A., Malappuram') within whose territorial limits major portion of the route lies. On the request made by the R.T.A., Malappuram concurrence was granted by the Regional Transport Authorities of Thrissur, Palakkad and Kozhikode as provided in R.203A of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1961 (for short 'the Rules'). The R.T.A., Malappuram notified the application under S.57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the old Act'). On 5-7-1988, R.T.A., Malappuram after hearing the petitioner and also some other persons who made representations, took a decision to invite applications afresh under S.57(2) of the old Act. Though the said decision was challenged in appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') and later in an Original Petition filed in this Court the order of the R.T.A, Malappuram dated 5-7-88 remained undisturbed. Applications were received from respondents 4 to 7 in response to the notification., R.T.A, Malappuram referred those applications for concurrence to the other Regional Transport Authorities concerned, but concurrence was refused by all those authorities. In the light of such refusal, R.T.A., Malappuram rejected all the applications, including the application submitted by the petitioner, as per Ext. P4 order. Appeals were filed against Ext. P4 order before the Tribunal by the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5. The Tribunal took the view that since concurrence was granted by the other Regional Transport Authorities concerned in respect of one permit on this route, it is for the R.T.A., Malappuram to consider as to who among the applicants is most qualified for the grant of permit. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside Ext. P4 order and directed the R.T.A. Malappuram to take a decision afresh. A copy of the Tribunal's order is produced as Ext. P5. Petitioner challenges Ext. P5 in this Original Petition.

(2.) The attack against Ext. P5 centres round the following observations made by the Tribunal:

(3.) As the applications were filed under the old Act, learned counsel appearing for all the contesting parties submitted, that the applications could be considered and disposed of under the provisions of the old Act and not under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the new Act'). I proceed on the assumption, without deciding, that the applications can be disposed of under the old Act in view of the agreed stand of the contesting parties. The question is whether concurrence envisaged in R.203A relates to permit as totally distinguished from application. Answer to the said question would be sufficient to dispose of this Original Petition.