ARVINDAN Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The principal ground on which the Regional Transport Authority declined fresh regular permit to the third respondent is that 'the road portion from Elampalloor to Punnamukku is not wide enough to accommodate new stage carriage services'. This is presumably on the basis of Ext. P3 report of the Executive Engineer, PWD Roads Division that the road has no strength to bear additional heavy load. The decision of the Regional Transport Authority has rightly been set at naught by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in appeal. The road is wide enough for the third respondent to operate his service if the same is wide enough for the petitioners to operate their service. Additional heavy load could be brought on the road only if the buses are permitted to operate at the same time and spot with a clash of timings. The mere fact that there is a saturation of service is no ground to refuse permits as has been held in Mithilesh Garg vs. Union of India, 1992 AIR(SC) 443.

(2.) It is also extremely doubtful as to whether the first petitioner who is a rival operator and the second petitioner who is the Secretary of an Operator's Association have locus standi to maintain this Writ Petition. The rival operators have no right to challenge the grant of permit to another as has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 1996 of 2007 and 62 of 2012. The Association has at any rate no locus standi to challenge either Ext. P4 decision of the Regional Transport Authority or Ext. P6 judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. They call for no interference in exercise of the jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.