P. A. JOSE Vs. RTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two questions raised in this Original Petition are (1) whether q fourth respondent is competent to file revision against grant of variation of a stage carriage permit; (2) is it necessary that Regional Transport Authority should give reasons for granting such variation.

(2.) Facts: Petitioner was operating stage carriage service on the route Thayyur - Thrissur via. Kunnamkulam and Kechery, for which he has a regular stage carriage permit. He applied for a small variation in respect of the route by curtailing a portion and diverting it at another portion. By this variation, no change in the trips, timings or mileage is involved. The matter came up for consideration before the Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur (for short the Transport Authority') in the meeting held on 3-12-1991 and then no body objected. The Transport Authority passed the following order "Heard the applicant. Variation granted''. Fourth respondent, who is another operator of bus service on the route Thayyur - Thrissur, filed a revision under S.90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal'). His competence to file the application for revision was questioned by the petitioner, but the Appellate Tribunal held that he Ss competent on the premise that he is an aggrieved person. However, Appellate Tribunal set aside Transport Authority's order on the ground that it is "a non speaking order" and directed the Transport Authority to reconsider the matter afresh. Ext. P6 is the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal. This Original Petition filed under Art.226 and 227 of the Constitution is in challenge of Ext. P6.

(3.) The revisional jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal can be invoked only when an application is filed in that behalf by a person aggrieved. It is true that under S.64A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the old Act') revisional power could be exercised either on application or on its own motion. Corresponding provision of the new Act is S.90 which made a slight change that such revisional powers can be exercised only an application made to it. Proviso to S.90 of the new Act says that Appellate Tribunal shall not entertain any application from a person aggrieved by an order of the Transport Authority unless the application is made within thirty days from the date of the order. The proviso, thus, makes the position abundantly clear that no suo motu revision is envisaged and that the person who invokes revisional powers must be "a person aggrieved" by the order.