LAWS(KER)-1964-3-33

NARAYANA TRANSPORTS CALICUT Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY CALICUT

Decided On March 24, 1964
NARAYANA TRANSPORTS, CALICUT Appellant
V/S
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, CALICUT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ applicant questions the order, Ext. P1, passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Kozhikode, the first respondent to this writ application, the operative portion of which reads as follows:

(2.) "C.W.M.S." referred to stands for Messrs. Calicut Wynad Motor Service, Private, Limited, Kozhikode, and is the second respondent to this writ application. Much explanation at the Bar was necessary to understand what has been done by the first respondent. Ultimately it has turned out that the first respondent has temporarily extended the existing permit of the second respondent. The second respondent admittedly had a permit to operate a vehicle from Calicut to Ekarool. There have been many applications, it appears, made before the first respondent for the issue of temporary permits on the route Calicut -- Thalad via Ekarool. The writ applicant also had applied, So had the second respondent. His application for the permit is seen at page 87 of the file. This is in the form prescribed for the application for a temporary permit and the route mentioned in that application is the entire route from Calicut to Thalad. From the heading of the order, Ext. P1, it is not at all seen that this application has been considered and there was no application for the extension of the permit which the second respondent held for operating a vehicle between Calicut and Ekarool and Thalad. In these circumstances I am not prepared to say that counsel for the petitioner was not justified in the various attacks he made against the order, Ext. P1. Only I am not prepared to go the whole hog with him and hold that the first respondent has acted without jurisdiction.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner contended that the first respondent had no authority or jurisdiction to grant any permit for which there was no application made. He invited my attention to the proviso to S.48(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act to understand which it is necessary to read S.48(1) as well.