ANTONY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, Mr. K. S. Sebastian, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenges the orders of the R. T. A. Kottayam, and the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, namely, Exs. P2 and P. 3, respectively. Under Ex. P. 2 the R. T. A. has granted a stage carriage permit in respect of the route in question in favour of the third respondent herein. No doubt, there was an appeal against this grant to the Appellate Tribunal by the aggrieved party, namely, the writ petitioner. The Appellate Tribunal also has ultimately agreed with the grant made by the R. T. A. in favour of the third respondent and as such has confirmed the order of the R. T. A.

(2.) THE main contention that has been urged by Mr. K. S. Sebastian, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that both the authorities have committed an illegality or an irregularity inasmuch as they have clubbed together an application filed by the petitioner as early as 30-8-1955 along with applications that were received by the authority in pursuance of a notification issued on 24-2-1959. Mr. K. S. Sebastian had referred to certain provisions of the Act to which I will advert immediately and also to two decisions, one of the Allahabad High Court and another of the Assam High Court and stated that when an application has been filed by a person in the position of the petitioner under the first part of S. 57 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act and when the notification calling for objections in respect of that application has also been issued under S. 57 (3) of the Act there was a statutory duty on the part of the R. T. A. to consider and dispose of the application filed by the said person under S. 57 (5) of the Act. THErefore, the learned counsel urged that notwithstanding the objections raised by his client both before the R. T. A. and the Appellate Tribunal they have in law acted illegally in not sustaining the objections so made.

(3.) THE learned Government Pleader, no doubt, supported the stand taken by Mr. Sivasankara Panicker.