P AHAMMED Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein was the petitioner and respondents herein were the respondents in the Original Petition. The O.P. was filed praying for a direction to implement Ext. P1 judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal directing to grant a regular stage carriage permit to the appellant. The appellant applied for the grant of a regular stage carriage permit on the route Karakkad - Cherplassery by offering stage carriage KL - 10 / M - 3449 or other vehicle. By proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 17.1.2002 it was rejected as follows: -

(2.) So far as the application for stage carriage is concerned, the applicant can mention that the permit will be issued to the vehicle which is really available or which will be produced at the time of issuing permit. It is not necessary to state the details regarding the stage carriage at the time of filing the application. Formerly when the right was given to the private owners to challenge a permit or when there is a competition for a permit on a particular route, the question of preference was resorted to. It was held by this Court in such cases a person who has got ready vehicle at the time of consideration of application will be preferred to a person who does not have a vehicle. That is not the condition now. Here the appellant applied for a grant of permit by giving the details of a vehicle and also stated that he will produce another vehicle on the date as per the law before the issue of the permit. Hence, according to us, the view taken by the learned single Judge that the Tribunal was wrong in granting permit to the appellant is wrong. Further we do not understand how a grant of a permit can be interfered in an Original Petition filed by the applicant for implementation of the order. The order granting permit has become final. That cannot be interfered.

(3.) It is true that a vehicle already covered under a permit cannot be given another permit. In this case, the appellant has clearly stated that there are two vehicles, one is already having a permit. Further it cannot be said that the vehicle which is already having a permit cannot be considered. If within the time required for the issue of the permit the validity of the earlier permit in the offered bus expires. We do not agree with the findings of the learned single Judge. We set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge and direct the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad to take all steps to issue permit to the appellant within a period of month from today after settling the timings.