SUNNY ABRAHAM Vs. SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges Ext.P2 grant of Temporary Permit, which has been issued in favour of the second respondent, for a period of four months, on 22.07.2002. He claims to be an existing operator on the route Kaipuzhamuttu Ernakulam. According to him, the second respondent had applied for grant of a regular permit on the route Poothotta T.V.Puram. This had been rejected by the Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam on the ground that the route overlaps the notified route.

(2.) It is not disputed that the second respondent had filed an appeal against the said order and the State Transport Appellate Tribunal had allowed the appeal and directed to issue the permit. However, at the instance of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, the operation of the order of the STAT stands stayed in O.P.No.9790 of 2002 by order dated 26.6.2002. It is averred that thereafter the second respondent had been issued with a Temporary Permit, as referred to earlier, under section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is stated that for a considerable distance the second respondent s service overlaps the petitioner s route of operation. He claims that an application for a certified copy of the proceedings had been filed, but this had been issued belatedly. It is further stated that the certified copy so issued to him is Ext.P4. However, the averments in paragraph 3 of the Original Petition appear to be totally confusing. The grant of the permit is on 22.07.2002 and the application for certified copy is dated 27.08.2002. It is stated that delaying it for two months a copy was supplied on 29.09.2001. This is impossible. Ext.P4 however shows that it is a grant of Temporary Permit for 20 days. Therefore, it cannot be the permit which ahs been under challenge. No reference thereafter is made about Ext.P4. The relief is confined to a challenge of Ext.P2. The petitioner has not explained as to why such details are given. However, in these proceedings we will confine as to the justifiability of the grant of permit, evidenced by Ext.P2.

(3.) The contention is that the permit has been issued under section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Only the Regional Transport Authority is competent to grant a permit under the said section and the power has not been delegated to the Secretary. The petitioner relies on Ext.P5 judgment for this proposition. In a nut shell, the submission is that the grant of permit by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority was illegal and the proceedings are to be quashed.