C M ABRAHAM Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a bus operator conducting a bus service in the route Melattu - Pattambi, has filed this original petition seeking to quash Ext. P5 order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in Motor Vehicles Act, Revision Petition Case No. 6 of 1972. The 3rd respondent is another bus operator conducting a bus service on the route Thiruvazhamkonnu Pattambi. This route goes along Alanellore, Ucharakadavu, Melattur, Perinthalmanna, Koppam, Muthuthala and Pattambi. Some members of the travelling public of Thiruvazbamkunnu, Alanellore and Melattur submitted a memorandum to the RTO., Malappuram on 7-8-1971 pointing out the difficulties felt by them to go to Guruvayoor. The difficulty pointed out was that the travelling public of this area have no through bus service facility to go to Guruvayoor. They have to get down at Pattambi and wait for getting into other bus to reach Guruvayoor. They requested to provide for such facility. Incidentally they pointed out in the representation that there will be some temporary relief if the bus service conducted by the 3rd Respondent is extended to Guruvayoor. This representation was considered at a meeting of the RTA. held on 11-12-1971. Notice of this matter was given to the permit holders in that route. Some of the existing operators appeared and objected to the granting of any relief on this mass representation. The 3rd Respondent orally supported the representation. The RTA. disallowed the prayer stating three grounds: (i) the route claimed is a circuitous one, (ii) shorter routes connecting Guruvayoor are available, and (iii) there is no temporary need established. The copy of the order is Ext. P3. The travelling public did not take up the matter further. The 3rd Respondent filed a revision petition before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal against this order. The petitioner was also made a respondent to that revision petition. The S.T.A.T. came to the conclusion that the reasons given by the R.T.A. are unsustainable. The copy of the order is Ext. P5. By Ext. P5 order the revision was allowed and it was also directed that the R.T.A. should grant a permit for extension of the stage carriage service on the route Thirvazhacakunnu - Pattambi up to Guruvayoor. It is this order that is challenged in this original petition.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner contended that the revision petition filed before the Appellate Tribunal was not maintainable at the instance of the 3rd Respondent. According to him, none of the rights of the 3rd Respondent are affected by the order. He did not apply for any relief before the RTA. The mass representation of the travelling public of Thiruvazhamkunnu, Alanellore and Melattur was only a representation requesting for better transport facility for them to reach Guruvayoor. They did not complain about any of the existing operators, nor did they want the transport facility to be served by any particular bus service. There is no specific provision in the Motor Vehicles Act requiring the Transport Authority to consider this mass representation alone in any particular manner, and in the absence of an application for a permit by anybody. The fact that notice for consideration of this representation was given to persons conducting bus service in the route in question will not in any way alter the character of the mass representation. Any decision on that will not be illegal or affect the rights of any of the existing operators in the route. This in short is the submission made on this point. Though this contention is seriously pressed for consideration before me, in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Lakshmi Narain v. S. T. Authority, U. P. ( AIR 1968 SC 410 ) it cannot be said that the revision petition is "not maintainable at the instance of the 3rd Respondent. In that case the Regional Transport Authority decided to limit the number of stage carriages in a route under S.47(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act. An existing operator filed a revision petition against that order before the State Transport Authority. That revision petition was dismissed on the ground that a mere decision limiting the number of stage carriages under S.47(3) could not form the subject matter of a revision petition. The matter was taken up to the High Court. The High Court took the view that an existing operator can have no say in the matter of the determination of the strength on a route under S.47(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act and it was in the discretion of the RTA. to determine the strength after considering the various matters enumerated in S.47(1). On the merits the order of the RTA. was found to be correct. On that basis, without going into the question whether a revision petition is maintainable before the S.T.A.T., the High Court dismissed the writ petition. It was against that that an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court. In deciding the question of maintainability of the revision petition the Supreme Court held thus:

(3.) Again, in para 7 of the Judgment their Lordships observed as follows: