MOHANAN Vs. R T A KOZHIKODE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER, a pucca operator on the Cannanore-Valayam (via Tellicherry) route, aggrieved by Ext. P1 order of Regional Transport authority, Kozhikode (1st respondent) granting a temporary permit to the 3rd respondent on 17-12-1981 to operate a service for four months on the new route pulloor-ambara Parassinikkadavu (Via. Tellicherry) seeks a writ of certiorari to quash Ext P1 and consequential reliefs. The two routes overlap between cannanore to Tellicherry, a distance of over twenty kilometres. Both the routes stretch across Cannanore and Kozhikode districts.

(2.) THE pleadings and the file placed before the Court by the learned Government Pleader disclose the following facts. Parassinikkadavu is an important centre of religious pilgrimage in Cannanore district. Parassinikkadavu Vikasana Samithi on 21-10-1981 represented to the Regional transport Authority, Kozhikode that a new bus service should be arranged between Pullurampara-Parassinikkadavu (via. Tellicherry and Cannanore) to meet the requirements of the public. Second respondent, Secretary of Regional Transport Authority made enquiries through the concerned Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, who reported that there is real necessity for introduction of such a Bus service as people of the panchayats on the route visit the temple frequently for worship and a direct bus service will be convenient for the people of the concerned villages. THE proposed route has a length of 149. 5 kilometres and at present no buses are operating on the portion between Pulloorambara and Nellipoyil, i. e. to a distance of 4 kilometres. Previously there was a bus service through this route. A duly notified meeting of the R. T. A. was held on 26-11-1981 to consider the proposal. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation alone objected to the proposal. Petitioner did not object. Meanwhile, K P. Bhaskaran applied for a temporary permit for this route. R T. A. decided to invite applications for Pucca and temporary permits for this route, and directed consideration of the applications received along with applications to be received in response to the invitation. Third respondent also submitted his application for a temporary permit. At a duly notified meeting of the R. T. A. held on 7-12-1981, it was decided to grant temporary permit to 3rd respondent and to reject the application of K. P. Bhaskaran. Petitioner did not raise any objection. It appears that K. P. Bhaskaran has filed an appeal and the same is pending before the appellate authority. Third respondent alleges in the counter affidavit that petitioner is the father-in-law and has been set up by K. P. Bhaskaran. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent has stated that petitioner is not the father-in-law, but the uncle of K. P. Bhaskaran.

(3.) IT is not clear from the judgment in Thozhilali Bus service, Chalakudy v. Secretary, R. T A. Trichur and others (AIR. 1974 Kerala 188) if the order of the R. T. A. granting a temporary permit contained a finding on the existence of a particular temporary need. All the applications were suo motu; there was no notification calling for applications. Vadakkel, J. scanned the file and was satisfied that the application and the report of the Motor vehicle Inspector contained sufficient materials to prove the particular temporary need which had not been objected to before the R. T. A. Vadakkel, J. also stressed the need for R. T. As to pass speaking order in Balaji Motors, trichur v. R T. A. (1976 KLT 13 ). In this case the impugned orders did not advert to the material available in the file, but contained findings regarding existence of a temporary need. The applications were not responsive to notification and were suo motu. But there were objections to grant of permits vadakkel, J. examined the file and held that the factual existence of the need had not been made out and quashed the order. The case in A. C. Louis v. R. T A. Kottayam (1977 KLT. 241) dealt with temporary permit granted overruling objections of existing operators. The judgment does not show that application was in response to a notification. Subramonian Poti, J. (as he then was)observed that it is necessary that R. T. A should primarily apply its mind as to which of sub-clauses of S. 62 (1) would apply to a given case before granting a permit. That alone will enable it to consider the question of temporary permits properly. The minimum required is a positive finding of a temporary need and the statement of reasons which support the finding. In O. P. No. 4448 of 1973, vadakkel, J. quashed the sanction of a temporary permit by the R. T. A. on the ground that the order was not a speaking order, that the R. T. A. did not apply its mind and exercise power vested in it properly and that it did not consider any particular need for grant of a temporary permit. The judgment of this Court does not show that there was a notification catling for applications. In O. P. Nos. 876 of 1975 and 983 of 1975, Chandrasekhara Menon J. quashed a temporary permit issued on a suo motu application on the ground that there was no finding regarding the existence of temporary need and no reason also mentioned in the order of the R. T. A On a similar ground a similar stand was taken by this Court in O. P. No. 4541 of 1981 and the appeal filed in W. A. No. 494 of 198! was dismissed at the admission stage. See also Surendranathan v. R T A, Palghat & others (1975 KLT. SN Page 36) and Bahuleyan v. R. T. A Alleppey (1977 KLT. SN. Page 6 ).