BHASKARAN Vs. RTA ALLEPPEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts of the case are as following:

(2.) While the petitioner was so conducting service on the strength of Ext. P1, a copy of the order dated 20.11.2002 issued by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Alappuzha (Ext. P2) had been served on him. This showed that a temporary permit was granted for four months in respect of state carriage No. KL - 04 / J. 8929 in the place of KLY 9250 in favour of the registered owner of vehicle No. KLY 9250 (2nd respondent). Reference is made to Ext. P1 proceedings in the text of the order, but it is stated that:

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grant in favour of the petitioner is valid for four months in the defaulted vacancy and the grant did not incorporate any condition that the stage carriage will have to be taken off the road in any such contingency. He submits further that he was not heard before Ext. P2 order was issued and the proceedings violated principles of natural justice. It is pointed out by him that the vehicle now claimed as made available, is already having a hire purchase agreement with a financier and it would not have been possible for arranging a lease in respect of the vehicle with the second respondent and the transaction claimed was illegal, inoperative and also sham. He further submits that so long as he admittedly was not the registered owner of the vehicle now sought to be introduced, the Secretary, RTA erred in passing the order and it was therefore liable to be set aside.