MOHAMMED Vs. R.T.A.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER challenges the conditions in Ext. P-1 order issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram. The offensive conditions, according to him, are that he should not curtail any portion of the route or apply for another route curtailing varying any portion of the route already granted and that the permit would stand automatically cancelled as and when the vehicle causes an accident. Contention of the petitioner is that the Regional Transport Authority (First respondent) has no jurisdiction to impose such conditions.

(2.) THE short question that arises for consideration is whether the first respondent is vested with jurisdiction to impose the aforesaid conditions.

(3.) LEARNED Government Pleader submitted that the impugned order is appealable one and so the writ petition is not maintainable. Government Pleader further submitted that the order is appealable as provided under Section 89(l)(a) and as the petitioner has an alternative effective remedy available he cannot get any relief from this Court by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As the conditions imposed in the permit are challenged on the fundamental proposition that the Regional Transport Authority lacked jurisdiction to do so, the above contention of the Government Pleader is not tenable. As the challenge against the conditions imposed in Ext. P.1 goes to the root of the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority, existence of alternative remedy is no bar to the remedy Under Article 226 of the Constitution. In a case where an authority has acted wholly without jurisdiction, existence of alternative remedy is not a bar to the maintainability of the writ petition.