CHANDRAMATHY Vs. KASARAGOD BUS TRANSPORT CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal arises from the judgment of a learned Judge dismissing the Original Petition filed by the appellant to quash Ext. P10, the order of the 5th respondent, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal ("S. T. A. T."), allowing M. V. A. A. No 102 of 1983 and reversing the decision Ext. P1 of the 4th respondent, the Regional Transport Authority, Cannanore ("R. T. A.") granting a stage carriage permit to the appellant. By Ext. P10 the S. T. A. T. set aside the permit obtained by the appellant and granted it to the 1st respondent. Pursuant to the invitation for the grant of 2 stage carriage permits on the route Cannanore New Bus Stand - Talapady S. B. (Via) Taliparamba, Payyannur. Karivellur, Kanhangad, Bakel Bridge, Kalnad, Paravandukkunnu, Chattanchal, Kasaragod and Kumbalam, 5 operators including the appellant, and respondents 1 and 2 made applications to the R. T. A. They were numbered as applicant Nos. 2, 3 and 1 respectively. (We are leaving out the other two applicants as they do not figure in the controversy). The R. T. A. awarded marks to these applicants under R.177A, Motor Vehicles Rules. All got 5 marks each. The material split up figures are: the appellant was awarded 3 marks for sector and 4 marks for residence in effect 4 marks as that is more advantageous to her and the 1st respondent got the full 4 marks each both for sector and residence. The 2nd respondent was on the same footing as the 1st respondent. In the course of its proceedings dated 4-4-1983 the R. T. A. noted that they had obtained 5 marks each and that the 1st respondent has a pucca permit on the identical route. It also noted that while the appellant has offered a 1983 model vehicle if the permit was granted to her, the 2nd respondent had offered a 1982 model vehicle. On this reasoning the R. T. A. preferred the appellant and respondent 2 in public interest and granted one permit to each. From this decision the first respondent and applicant No. 4 preferred Appeal Nos. 102 of 1983 and 145 of 1983 respectively before the S. T. A. T. Those appeals were disposed of by Ext. P10. While dismissing Appeal No. 145 the S. T. A. T. allowed Appeal No. 102 granting the 1st respondent one permit, setting aside the decision of the R. T. A. in favour of the appellant. The appellant challenged this part of the order in the Original Petition which has given rise to the appeal.

(2.) We have already noted the grounds on which the R. T. A. granted , one permit to the appellant. Before the S. T. A. T. the marks awarded to the various applicants were not challenged. The reasoning of the S. T. A. T. in granting the permit to the 1st respondent can be summarised as follows: By reason of their full sector qualification respondents 1 and 2 were better qualified than the others and they were also operating temporary services on the identical route and these temporary permits were granted to them on 21-12-1982 in a contest with rival applicants on the ground that they had superior qualifications. Except stating that the first respondent had a pucca permit on the almost identical route the R. T. A. had assigned no reason to disqualify him for the permit. Pucca sector qualification is no disqualification. The grant of the permit to the appellant in preference to the 1st respondent, only because she offered a 1983 model vehicle was in no way justified. The model of the vehicle offered by the appellant could have assumed significance only if she was equally qualified on the other points as the remaining applicants and as this was not so, the preference given to her on this ground could not be supported. The 1st respondent had offered a vehicle KLN 9229 in his application and representation and some of the parties had disputed that this vehicle was in any way unfit or unsuitable for the service and it was with this vehicle that the temporary permit was being operated on the route. After holding that the two permits ought to have been given to respondents 1 and 2, the S. T. A. T. proceeded to note the appellant's contention that neither of them could claim any further superior qualifications, with reference to their full sector. On this the S. T. A. T. held that where marks bad already been awarded to two applicants in accordance with R.177A and both have secured the maximum marks a further enquiry as to who is better qualified among them with reference to their sector or residential qualifications is not impermissible as marks are only guides and do not govern the R. T. A.'s decision. If one among two rival applicants has got only residential qualification while the other has both residential as well as sector qualifications and other things being equal between them, it is only in public interest that the applicant who has both sector as well as residential qualification is preferred for the grant of the permit as such a course is permissible under S.47(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was on this substantial reasoning that the S. T. A. T. allowed Appeal No. 102. While granting one permit to the 1st respondent for its bus KLN 9229 or a still later model vehicle, the S. T. A. T. directed that it should produce the current records of the vehicle within 3 weeks.

(3.) In the judgment under appeal the learned Judge considered the appellant's contentions at length but found no ground to upset the S. T. A. T.'s decision.