ISMAIL SAIT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and S. 18(2) of the Travancore-Cochin High Court Act V of 1125, for a writ of certiorari. The 1st petitioner is the Managing Director of the Motor Service Syndicate Ltd. Alleppey. That Syndicate holds permit to run two Stage Carriages between Haripad and Kozhencheri and one Stage Carriage between Haripad and Thattarambalam. The 2nd petitioner is the Secretary of the Automobile Corporation Ltd., Mavelikara. That company holds permit to run a Stage Carriage between Harripad and Kozhencherry and two Stage Carriages between Harripad and Thattarambalam. The 5th counter petitioner applied to the Travancore-Cochin State Transport Authority for permit to run two Stage Carriages one between Harripad and Kozhencherri and the other between Haripad and Mundakkayam. The two applications were duly notified in the Government Gazette of 2nd May 1950. The application relating to the Harripad-Mundakkayam line was notified as R.O.C. No. 302 MRB/50 and that relating to the Haripad-Kozhencheri line as R.O.C. No. 306/MRB/50. In the application and in the Notification relating to the Haripad-Mundakkayam line the route was described as via Pandalam-Pathanamthitta and Ranni. The Notifications intimated that representations if any, against the granting of Stage Carriage permits on the above routes should reach the office of the Transport Authority within 15 days from the date of the Notifications. The petitioners and others submitted to the Transport Authority their objections to the granting of the permits applied for by the 5th counter petitioner. The Transport Authority granted permits to the 5th counter petitioner to run two Stage Carriages daily between Haripad and Kozhencherri. The petitioners appealed to the Government from this decision. The Government confirmed the decision of the Transport Authority and dismissed the appeal. The present petition is for quashing the orders of the Transport Authority and the Government.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners did not press the petition as regards the permit granted under the application notified as R.O.C. 306 MRB/50. He conceded that the Transport Authority acted within its jurisdiction in granting that application, although according to him the Transport Authority did not exercise its discretion properly in granting the same.

(3.) With regard to the application No. 302 MRB/50 it was strenuously argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the Transport Authority exceeded its jurisdiction in granting a permit under that application for running a Stage Carriage between Pathanamthitta and Kozhencherri. The ground urged is that the application was for permit to run a Stage Carriage between Haripad and Mundakkayam via Pandalam, Pathanamthitta and Ranni, while the permit granted by the Transport Authority was for service between Haripad and Kozhencherry. Kozhencherry is not on the Haripad-Mundakkayam line. Kozhencherri is about 8 miles to the north east of Pathanamthitta. The petitioners case is that the granting of permit to the 5th counter petitioner to run one more Stage Carriage between Pathanamthitta and Kozhencherri has prejudicially affected their existing service between these two places. It is argued that since the 5th counter petitioner had not in his application as R.O.C. No. 302 asked for permit for service in that line the petitioners had no opportunity to make any representation before the Transport Authority in respect of that matter.