USMAN Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Seldom do I entertain a writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India when the petitioner has an effective statutory remedy unless there are compelling reasons. I am however constrained to interfere with the decision of the Regional Transport Authority since all the statutory provisions have been thrown to the wind. This is particularly so since the parties are not at variance on facts and only the interpretation of the statutory provisions applicable remains to be considered.

(2.) The second respondent was operating a stage carriage service with his vehicle KL - 53/3221 on the route Manalaya Harijan Colony - Pattambi on the strength of a regular permit. The second respondent applied for clearance certificate obviously to transfer the vehicle to another keeping the regular permit under suspended animation. This was followed by WP (C) No. 23071/2013 on the file of this Court wherein a clearance certificate was directed to be issued by Ext. P1 judgment dated 12/09/2013. The validity of the regular permit was to expire on 15/04/2014 and hence the second respondent had applied for its renewal on 20/03/2014 well in advance. The second respondent did not pursue the application for renewal of the regular permit for quite a long time since he had no vehicle at his disposal for operation of the service. It was only on 21/02/2015 did the second respondent make available another vehicle KL - 53 H / 1186 for the purpose of the renewal of the regular permit. The second respondent simultaneously put in an application for replacing the vehicle KL - 53/3221 with a later model vehicle KL - 53 H / 1186 to operate service on the route. The Regional Transport Authority by one stroke in its decision on 21/05/2015 (as item No. 105 in Ext. P3 proceedings) allowed both the renewal and replacement. This is challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition contending that there has been a flagrant violation of the provisions of law. The petitioner claims to be a stage carriage vehicle operator and has sought a temporary permit to operate service on the route earlier served by the second respondent.

(3.) I heard Mr. Stalin P. Davis, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, Smt. K. A. Sanjeetha, the Government Pleader and Mr. Sajeev Kumar K. Gopal, Advocate on behalf of the second respondent.