GIRIJA DEVI Vs. K T MATHEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Regional Transport Authority granted a stage carriage permit to the appellant for a slightly different route than the one in respect of which he had applied for the stage carriage permit. The first respondent is a stage carriage operator of a portion of the route applied for by the appellant viz. Ponkunnam, Paika, Palai. He appears to have submitted before the Regional Transport Authority that the appellant cannot be granted a Fast Passenger Stage Carriage Permit, on the ground that such permit can be granted only in respect of routes of a particular distance and that too in favour of existing fleet operators. Ultimately, the Regional Transport Authority granted a permit, excluding the sector on which the first respondent operates and granting a permit in respect of slightly deviated route-Ponkunnam (Via) Elampilly, Pallickathodu, Palai, and so on. As regards the timings, the parties were required to be heard.

(2.) The appellant challenged the decision of the Regional Transport Authority before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority and granted the application for the grant of the permit in respect of the route as prayed for by him, reserving discretion to the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority to allot suitable timings, after taking into consideration the interests of the existing operators. It is the said decision that was challenged by the first respondent in O.P.No.8127 of 1990. The learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition, quashed the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and remitted the case to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, principally on the ground that the first respondent should have been impleaded as a party and that he should have been heard before a decision was taken on merits regarding grant of the permit. It is the said decision that is challenged in this appeal.

(3.) When the matter came up for admission, as we thought that the matter lies in a very narrow-compass, we issued notice regarding admission so that the matter could be disposed of expeditiously. Accordingly, the parties were served and we heard counsel appearing for them.