SHORNUR ROAD TRANSPORT Vs. R T A PALGHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Original Petition is for quashing Ext. P3 judgment of the 3rd respondent, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner is a stage carriage operator conducting service on the route Thrissur-Palakkad with her stage carriage KRP 7863. There is another stage carriage of the petitioner operating on the route Iringattiri-Palakkad. Respondents 5 and 6 submitted applications for regular permit on the route Thavanoor-Palakkad. The petitioner's service operating on the route Thrissur-Palakkad has a common sector of 45 kms. from Kulappalli to Palakkad and her service operated on the route Iringattiri-Palakkad overlaps 60 Kms. from Pattambi to Palakkad on the route Palakkad-Thavanur applied by respondents 5 and 6. Therefore the petitioner objected to the grant in favour of respondents 5 and 6. When the applications were taken up for consideration the petitioner as well as the various other operators objected. Respondents 5 and 6 submitted the same set of timing for the grant of permits. Therefore the first respondent passed, after hearing the petitioner and other persons objected, Exts. P1 and P2 orders rejecting the application for permit. The relevant portion of Ext. P1 reads as under:

(2.) Heard Shri. Ravindran counsel for the petitioner, Shri Prabhakaran, counsel appearing on behalf of the 5th respondent, Shri Radhakrishnan, counsel appearing on behalf of the 6th respondent and the Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 to 4.

(3.) Admittedly the route applied for by respondents 5 and 6 has a common sector 45 Kms. in one case and 60 Kms. in the other with the route operated by the petitioner. The petitioner, among others, opposed the grant as well as the timings. Exts.P1 and P2 are the orders of the R.T.A. refusing the grant. R.T.A. rejected the grant as it was satisfied from the time schedule furnished that the provisions of the Act relating to the speed at which the vehicle can be driven are likely to be contravened. But it was made clear in the order that respondents S and 6 are at liberty to file separate set of timings. If the matter rested there when fresh applications filed the petitioner and others would have obtained an opportunity to attend the meeting of the R.T. A. and make representation, for R.123(2) provides for adequate notice of meeting of the R.T.A. and of the business to be transacted thereat to be given to persons who, in the opinion of the Regional Transport Authority or of its Secretary, may reasonably have a claim to be permitted to attend the meeting for the purpose of making representations. Such notice had already been given pursuant to which the petitioner and others have made representation and were heard before Exts.P1 and P2 were passed. If similar applications have to be considered again the petitioner has a legitimate expectation that such a notice would be given to the petitioner and others under R.123(2). R.123 and 128 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles R.1989 are extracted hereunder: