NARAYANAN Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY CANNANORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Original Petitions wherein the very same order of the Regional Transport Authority, Cannanore is questioned were heard together. The grievance of the petitioners is against the grant of a temporary permit by the Regional Transport Authority, Cannanore - Ist respondent. The ambit of the preferential treatment to be given to a cooperative society under S.47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, arises for consideration in these Original Petitions. The fate of these Original Petitions also depends upon a decision of the question whether the petitioners can invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution without exhausting the alternative remedy provided by the Statute.

(2.) The petitioner in O. P. No. 5169 of 1974 is a Stage Carriage Operator within the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent, holding 9 pucca stage carriage permits and 3 temporary permits, He is operating a regular service in the Koothuparamba - Caiman ore route for which the temporary permit in question is also granted. The vacancy arose when one P. Satyabhama who was granted a pucca permit could not put a suitable vehicle on the route. The case of the petitioner is that from 16-10-1971 till 25-11-1974 he was making arrangements for operating this route by sending his spare buses though the permit used to be issued in the name of the said Satyabhama, Proprietress, Anil Roadways, Cannanore for technical reasons. Ext. P1 series (14 in number) produced in the case shows that temporary permits were issued for the buses mentioned in the Original Petition as belonging to the petitioner in the Cannanore - Kinavakkal route. The petitioner states that for the period 28-8-1974 to 25-11-1974 temporary permits in the route Cannanore - Kothuparamba were issued in his name in respect of vehicle K. L. C. 3747 by the 2nd respondent when the sanction for the grant of a pucca permit to the said P. Satyabhama was again revoked for not producing a suitable vehicle.

(3.) The petitioner's case is that he purchased a new vehicle K. L. H. 2496 for operating this route. The 1st respondent instead of raking regular steps for the grant of a pucca permit on the route proceeded to grant a temporary permit in the route though the petitioner was operating on the route. Seven applications including those of the petitioner and the 3rd respondent for temporary permits came up for consideration before the 1st respondent on 23-11-1974. The petitioner entered appearance through counsel and pointed out that the petitioner who possessed a Z974 model vehicle was the best qualified applicant and he was already operating the route in question from 16-10-1971. It was also pointed out that the 3rd respondent Cooperative Society, did not have as much qualification as the petitioner was having. But the 1st respondent granted a temporary permit to the 3rd respondent and it was under the above circumstances that the petitioner filed this Original Petition against the above grant. Subsequent to the filing of this Original Petition, the petitioner has produced the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 23-11-1974 granting the temporary permit as Ext. P2, The petitioner has sought for a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P2.