SHEEBA Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question for consideration is whether there can be a temporary variation of the regular permit. Petitioner, who is operating her stage carriage bearing Reg. No. 860 Sheeba y. THE Regional Transport Authority (R. Rajendra Babu, J.) 2002 (2) KRD 6615 on the route Medical College Hospital- Meenchanda, filed this Original Petition for quashing Ext. P2 proceedings of the R. T. A. , Kozhikode, dated 14th September, 2001 granting temporary variation to the third respondent in respect of his stage carriage bearing Reg. No. KRD 7738 operating on the route Railway Station-Medical College Hospital - Feroke. THE third respondent filed an application for the grant of temporary variation by providing an additional trip, Medical College Hospital-City via Malapparamba. That was allowed by the R. T. A. by Ext. P2 proceedings. THE above order is under challenge.

(2.) THE third respondent filed a counter stating that he was operating his stage carriage bearing Reg. No. KRD 7738 on regular permit on the route Railway Station -Medical College Hospital- Feroke via Malapparamba and Civil Station, which was valid upto 18th February 2004. THE above service would reach the Medical College Hospital at 5. 44 p. m. and thereafter would leave from Medical College Hospital towards Feroke only at 7. 05 p. m. THE stage carriage had to be unnecessarily detained for one hour and 21 minutes at Medical College Hospital during the peak hours and hence the third respondent filed an application for the grant of four months temporary permit for utilising the above vacant timing without affecting the regular operation so as to take an additional trip from Medical college Hospital at 6. 03 p. m. and to arrive back Medical College Hospital at 7. 03 p. m. retaining the existing timings and after necessary enquiry the above application was allowed. THE grant of temporary permit was advantageous to the travelling public and as such the above order was in accordance with law and hence cannot be interfered with.

(3.) EXT. P2 proceedings of the R. T. A. would clearly reveal that the application made by the petitioner was for temporary variation of the permit for four months and the above proposed variation was allowed holding that it was beneficial to the travelling public. The R. T. A. had considered the application as one for temporary variation of the permit and as the temporary variation was found to be advantageous to the travelling public, it was allowed. In fact, EXT. P2 order did not disclose that the application was one for the grant of temporary permit, but it would show that it was granted as a temporary variation of the regular permit. In view of the above order, the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the third respondent that the third respondent had applied for a temporary permit and it was granted cannot be accepted.