T. MOHAMMED Vs. SECY. RTA, MALAPPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal is preferred by Sri. T. Mohammed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in O. P. No. 5884 of 1992 filed by the fourth respondent writ petitioner, Sri. K. Marakkar.

(2.) In the Writ Petition, the fourth respondent writ petitioner has stated that he submitted application for grant of a regular permit for operating on the route Kozhikode - Kalikavu (via) Medical College, Karanthur, Kunuamangalam, Mukkam, Areacode, Edavanna, Tiruvali. It is an inter district route falling within the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority Malappuram and Kozhikode, major portion of which falling within the jurisdiction of the former. The fourth respondent further has stated that the Regional Transport Authority, Kozhikode in its meeting held on 4-10-1991 has granted concurrence for introduction of the service. After other statutory formalities were completed, the application of the writ petitioner was placed before the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority on 27-11-1991 and the petitioner appeared before the authority and explained the need for granting a permit At the time of consideration of the application, the writ petitioner was not in possession of any vehicle. He however filed an affidavit before the Regional Transport Authority undertaking that he would produce a 1980 or a later model vehicle within the time contemplated under R.159(2) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, as per Ext. P2. The grievance of the writ petitioner was that inspite of that the Regional Transport Authority had deferred the issue of permit on the ground that the petitioner has not filed an affidavit undertaking that the vehicle will be produced within 30 days, vide Ext. P3. In that order the Regional Transport Authority stated as follows:

(3.) The appellant, in his memorandum of appeal, stated that he is conducting a service on the route Manjeri - Thiruvambady (via) Areacode - Mukkom. He has regular permit for his vehicle KLM 9739. His grievance is that the writ petitioner (fourth respondent) is granted a regular permit on the route Areacode - Kalikavu. He contends that the writ petitioner applied for a regular permit on the route Kozhikode - Kalikavu, and also proposed a set of timings for the new permit, which timings would clash with the appellant's timings. The proposed route of the fourth respondent has a common sector with the appellant in respect of 25 KMs from Areacode - Mukkom. As par the timings allotted to the appellant's stage carriage it is to depart from Areacode at 10. 50 AM, whereas the fourth respondent's stage carriage would now arrive at Areacode at 10.45 A. M. and depart at 10.50 A M. This, according to the appellant, would enable the fourth respondent to reach Areacode ahead of the appellant's service and collect the entire complement of passengers from Areacode to Mukkom. It is further pointed out that on 27-11-1991 when the RTA took up the application of the fourth respondent, the latter did not even have a vehicle and the RTA deferred the decision a view to permitting the writ petitioner to procure a vehicle. This is clear from Ext. P3. The writ petitioner instead of procuring the vehicle, rushed to this Court and filed O. P. No. 5884 of 1992 on a wrong representation that he had a ready vehicle KEF 7990, and produced registration certificate as per Ext. P4. It is stated that as a matter of fact, the said vehicle on the date of filing of the Writ Petition, or on the date of rendering of the judgment by the learned Single Judge, was covered by a valid permit for another route, Annexure A 1, namely, Areacode - Kailkavu, and could not have been used for the present route. The writ petitioner obtained orders from this Court on a misrepresentation of facts. The appellant also objected to the timings granted to the writ petitioner, which would clash with the appellant's timings. It is also pointed out that after the order of the learned Single Judge, the RTA has now issued order of permit in favour of the writ petitioner as per Annexure A2 with fee timings mentioned by the writ petitioner in Ext P3 proceedings.