ANVAR Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is filed, inter alia, to quash Ext P8 order passed by the first respondent and declare that the petitioner is entitled for the grant of a regular permit on the route North Paravur - Vyttila Hub in preference to the permits granted in favour of the respondents 5 to 7.

(2.) The brief relevant facts are: the petitioner had submitted Ext P1 application on 15/2/2022, to grant a regular permit in his favour, to operate on the above route, having a distance of 28 kms, as provided under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( in short, 'Act'). As there was an inordinate delay on the part of the respondents 1 and 2 in considering Ext P1 application, the petitioner filed WP(C) No.23301/2022 before this Court, which was allowed by Ext P2 judgment, directing the first respondent to pass orders on Ext P1 application. Although the first respondent convened a meeting on 26/9/2022, as per Ext P3 proceeding, the meeting was adjourned without passing any orders, in total disregard to the directions contained in Ext P2 judgment. The reason for adjournment is that a bus owners association had filed a representation against the grant of regular permit in favour of the petitioner. As Ext P3 was contemptuous to Ext P2 judgment, the petitioner filed Contempt Case (C) No.97/2023 before this Court. However, when the contempt case came up for consideration, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the directions in Ext P2 judgment was complied with. Accordingly, by Ext P4 judgment, the contempt case was closed. Surprisingly, by Ext P8 order, the first respondent rejected the petitioner's application. Nonetheless, the first respondent allowed the applications submitted by the respondents 5 to 7 as per Exts P5 to P7 orders, respectively, granting all of them regular permits in respect of principally the same route applied by the petitioner. As the petitioner's application was filed first i.e., on 15/2/2022, he is entitled for a preference. The petitioner has been treated unequally just because he had approached this Court. The action of the first respondent is vengeful, illegal and arbitrary, and in flagrant violation of the petitioner's fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition.

(3.) The respondents 5 to 7 have filed a separate counter affidavits almost on the same lines, inter alia, contending that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy under Sec.89 of the Act, to prefer an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam. It is without exhausting the statutory remedy, the petitioner has approached this Court.