VICTOR MARIAN Vs. RTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was the holder of a stage carriage permit on the route Maliankara - Vypin touching Moothakunnam Ferry.That permit was issued in respect of bus No.KLE 7360.The permit was transferred in the name of the petitioner on 15th November,1979.The permit was valid up to 26th June,1981. It is the petitioner's case that since the vehicle KLE 7360 was an old model vehicle,he was maintaining the service since March,1980 with another vehicle, No.KLM 153,by obtaining temporary substitute permits.The petitioner,in the meantime,applied for replacement of bus No.KLE 7360 by bus No.KLM 153 in the stage carriage permit.The application Ext.P1 is alleged to have been submitted in December,1980.Apparently since the renewal of the stage carriage permit of bus No.KLE 7360 was due on 26th June,1981,this application for replacement does not appear to have been considered.The petitioner then applied for renewal of the stage carriage permit on 26th February,1981.Both these applications were kept pending for a long time for reasons best known to the 2nd respondent.

(2.) IT appears that bus No.KLM 153 which the petitioner was plying as substitute for bus No.KLE 7360 was not available for service for some time in February, 1982 and therefore the 2nd respondent invited applications for the grant of a substitute temporary permit.The petitioner had made the vehicle KLM 153 available for operation in the meantime and obtained a permit on 12th May, 1982.There appears to have been default again about one year later.

(3.) THE petitioner's application for renewal of the stage carriage permit,his application for replacement and the 4th respondent's application for substitute temporary permit were all considered in the meeting of the first respondent on 13th December,1983.By Ext.P5 order,the renewal and the replacement were granted by the R.T.A.In another item,the 4th respondent's application for temporary permit was granted by Ext.P6 order.The term of substitute temporary permit was for four months or till bus No.KLM 153 resumed service.The 4th respondent filed M.V.A.R.P.17/84 before the 3rd respondent State Transport Appellate Tribunal against Ext.P5 order.He also filed M.V.A.A.34/84 against the condition in Ext.P6 order that the permit would be valid for four months or till the bus KLM 153 resumed service.The 3rd respondent granted interim stay of the condition contained in Ext.P6 order.By Ext.P11 order,dated 14th March, 1984,the 3rd respondent disposed of the revision petition and the appeal setting aside Ext.P5 order and directing the first respondent to invite applications for the grant of stage carriage permit in the place of the petitioner's permit under S.57(2)of the Motor Vehicles Act and to delete the condition contained is Ext. P6 order.The petitioner submits that Ext.P5 order was not liable to be set aside at the instance of the 4th respondent;and in any case,the direction to invite applications for a fresh stage carriage permit under S.57(2)of the Motor Vehicles Act in the place of his stage carriage permit is not sustainable.He also maintains that the deletion of the condition contained in Ext.P6 order to the effect that the substitute temporary permit granted would be valid only till the bus KLM 153 resumes service is unsustainable in view of the fact that the very invitation of the application had indicated that the permit would be valid only till the resumption of service of the bus KLM 153,which was ordered to be replaced by Ext.P5 order at the same meeting of the R.T.A.Now that the period of the temporary permit granted to the 4th respondent by Ext.P6 order have expired and the 4th respondent having availed of the temporary permit issued pursuant thereto for the entire period,the legality of the order Ext.P11 need not be considered is so far as it deals with the appeal filed by the 4th respondent against Ext.P6 order. Any application for substitute temporary permit for any subsequent period may have to be considered without being inhibited by the observations contained in the judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal disposing of the 4th respondent's appeal against Ext.P6 order.