M K PRASANNAN Vs. R T A KOTTAYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This original petition filed under Art.226 of the Constitution of India is directed against Ext. P12 judgment dated 31-3-1984 of the S.T A.T. in M.V. A. A. Nos. 279/83 and 280/83. In this judgment the S.T. A T. set aside Ext. P2 order dated 23-6-1983 of the first respondent, the R.T.A , Kottayam, under which the petitioner herein (4th applicant) was ordered to be issued pucca permit in respect of the disputed route, in preference to all other applicants including respondents 3 and 4 herein (5th and first applicants respectively) and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the R.T.A. In doing so, the Tribunal observed that the experience gained by a medium operator by virtue of temporary permit in regard to a short route will not be a relevant qualification when the contest is between him and a new entrant. The petitioner has no grievance about the remand. His grievance is about this observation of the Tribunal, which according to him, is an incorrect one.

(2.) In Para.7 of the impugned judgment, the Tribunal observed as follows:-

(3.) The matter is one arising under S.47(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act and R.177A of the Motor Vehicles Rules. S.47(1) enumerates the matters which have to be taken into account in considering an application for a permit. These are the interests of the public generally, the advantages to the public of the service to be provided, the adequacy of other passenger transport services operating or likely to operate in the near future, the publication of a scheme under S.68C in respect of service of stage carriages, the benefit to any particular locality or localities likely to be afforded by the service, the operation by the applicant of other transport services, including those in respect of which applications from him for permits are pending (this is clause (c)) and the condition of the roads included in the proposed route or area.