BALAJI MOTORS TRICHUR Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORTS AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are motions for certiorari for quashing Ext. P1 proceedings in the respective petitions whereby the Regional Transport Authority, Palghat, who is the 1st respondent in both the petitions granted temporary permits in favour of the 3rd respondent in each of the two petitions. The petitioner is the same person; the routes in respect of which the temporary permits were issued are different as also the grantees, the 3rd respondent in each of the two petitions. The permits were granted as per proceedings of the 1st respondent at its meeting held on 15-7-1975. Since common questions of law were raised before me I am disposing of these petitions by a common judgment.

(2.) Ext. P1 decisions in both the petitions are couched in more or less the same language. In O. P. No. 3516 of 1975 this is what the Regional Transport Authority states in Ext. P1 proceedings produced in that case:

(3.) In Govindan v. R.T.A., Cannanore ( 1972 KLT 242 ) my learned brother Poti J. pointed out the necessity for indicating which one of he several clauses in S.62(1) was invoked by the Regional Transport Authority, It was stated therein that:-