BHASKARAN Vs. KANNAN CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the judgment by a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the Original Petition wherein the petitioner appellant challenged Ext. P5 judgment passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, the 4th respondent in the Original Petition. The matter concerned the competing claims between the petitioner - appellant on the one hand and the first respondent on the other for a grant of a stage carriage permit on the route Parassinikadavu - Perambra, a route about 88.5 K M. in length. The petitioner and the first respondent applied for the said permit and submitted representations, copies of which are Exts. P1 and P2. The petitioner claimed all operational facilities, such as residence, office, workshop etc. at Cannanore, full sector, experience of more than fifteen years in passenger transport business and two idle buses ready to be put on the route. The petitioner also claimed that being a fleet operator with six regular permits he is entitled to a permit on a long route. The first respondent also claimed residence, office and workshop arrangement on the route at Cannanore, 8 years experience, clean history, full sector by temporary permits, and partial sector by regular permits and a ready vehicle to be put on the route. Besides this the first respondent also mentioned in his representation that the petitioner has no residence on the route, he has not mentioned a vehicle in his application, he has transferred two permits and surrendered one permit.

(2.) At the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority Cannanore, the 3rd respondent, the applications came up for consideration. On the basis of the Motor Vehicles Rules marks were awarded to the appellant and the first respondent under Rule I77A in respect of their qualifications. The petitioner and the first respondent each got 5 marks. But then the 3rd respondent found that the petitioner had longer experience, residence nearer the route and possession of a vehicle of a model later than that offered by the first respondent. So the petitioner was preferred to the first respondent and his application was granted by Ext. P3 order dated 12-4-1982.

(3.) In the appeal by the first respondent before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal he sought stay. But no stay was granted against the operation of Ext. P3 order so much so permit was issued to the petitioner on the basis of which the petitioner is conducting the service on the route. It was urged before the 4th respondent by the first respondent that the past performance of petitioner was bad because of surrender of one permit and a transfer of two temporary permits granted to him. The 4th respondent thereupon passed Ext P5 judgment upholding the marks awarded to both the applicants by the Regional Transport Authority but holding that one such mark was awarded for residence/office and experience as further weightage should not be granted for residence nearer the route or for having more experience in the industry. The 4th respondent proceeded to consider the question of the transfer of two permits, surrender of one permit and non availing of temporary permit and on this basis held that the petitioner's past performance is not good as that of the first respondent. He therefore held that the order Ext. P3 is bad and consequently he set aside Ext. P3.