M. IQBAL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was the owner of a stage carriage bearing registration number KL 2/S 154 with a regular permit. The 4th respondent was his employee. The above respondent along with two other employees raised an industrial dispute alleging denial of employment. The Industrial Tribunal passed Ext.P1 award in favour of 4th respondent and two other employees directing the employer to pay compensation to them. In proceedings for recovery of the amounts, the stage carriage was sold in auction and purchased by the 4th respondent and others. The RC book, permit and other relevant documents were ordered to be given to the 4th respondent. Thereafter, the 4th respondent applied for renewal of permit and for issuance of a temporary permit. This was declined. After few proceedings, the matter is now pending in appeal as MVAA No.178/2019 filed at the instance of the writ petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner alleges that instead of availing the statutory remedies available to the 4th respondent, he moved the Minister of Transport by filing Ext.P6 representation. He sought certain directions to the transport authorities. Due to the alleged influence exerted by him, the then transport Minister issued Ext.P7 order dated 5/10/2020 directing the Kollam RTO to place the matter before the RTA for consideration of the permit. This order is under challenge at the instance of the petitioner. The relief sought was for issuing a mandamus or appropriate writ restraining the second and third respondents from granting temporary permit to the 4 th respondent in the vacancy of petitioner's service and also to quash Ext.P7 proceedings issued by the Government.

(3.) Assailing Ext.P7 proceedings, the learned counsel for the petitioner urged three specific grounds. It was contended that, under the scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act, which is a self contained code, the issuance of permit and other connection provisions are conferred with the transport authorities. The Government is not conferred with any power in relation to grant of permit. In the above circumstance, Ext.P7 was absolutely without any jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. It was also contended that, the 4th respondent approached the Minister suppressing the fact that Ext.P5 order was passed and that an appeal was pending at the instance of the petitioner against Ext.P5. It was further contended that, before passing Ext.P7 order, the petitioner was not given an opportunity of being heard.