RAMANUNNI NAIR Vs. STAT ERNAKULAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises for consideration in this Original Petition is whether a Regional Transport Authority can refuse a request to club together two suo motu applications for a stage carriage permit filed under S.57(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in passing orders under S.57(5) of the Act granting the permit. The petitioner in this Original Petition is a stage carriage operator operating services in the Palghat, Malappuram and Trichur districts. He filed two applications under the first part of S.57(2) of the Act before the 2nd respondent Regional Transport Authority, Palghat for two pucca stage carriage permits on the route Ponnani - Palghat and Thavanoor Palghat. The above applications which were item Nos. 44 and 45 in the Agenda of the meeting of the 2nd respondent held on 27-1-1974 were rejected on the ground that an application has already been . entertained. Against the above orders of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner filed appeals before the 1st respondent State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam. The 1st respondent though allowed the above appeals, rejected the petitioner's request to direct the 2nd respondent to club his applications along with that of the 5th respondent Mayil Vahanam Motor Service, Palghat.

(2.) The petitioner claims 23 years of standing in operating stage carriages and also experience along a major portion of the two routes in question which are two long distant routes in the Palghat district. Both the above routes are routes where Messrs. Murugan Transports were operating. But the vacancies arose because they defaulted their services. The 2nd respondent at its meeting held on 21-1-1974 decided to notify two suo motu applications filed by the 5th respondent, Mayil Vahanam Motor Service, for the grant of two pucca stage carriage permits; one on the Ponnani Palghat route and the other on the Thavanoor Palghat route. The petitioner, an existing operator in the routes in question, when he came to know that the above applications were posted as items 15 and 19 respectively for consideration at the meeting held on 21-1-1974, entered appearance and requested that in the interests of the travelling public the necessity for the two routes may be determined and the number of permits fixed and the applications for the grant of permits invited. But the case of the petitioner is that without considering the petitioner's request the 2nd respondent decided to notify the applications of the 5th respondent by Exts. P1 and P2 decisions respectively. The petitioner then filed two suo motu applications under S.57(2) of the Act for the above two routes and these applications came up for consideration in the next meeting of the 2nd respondent on 27-2-1974. The petitioner requested the 2nd respondent that his applications also may be entertained and notified under S.57(3) of the Act so that they can also be disposed of together with the two applications of the 5th respondent. But the 2nd respondent rejected the petitioner's applications and Exts. P3 and P4 are the decisions of the 2nd respondent on the two applications of the petitioner.

(3.) Against Exts. P3 and P4 the petitioner filed Exts. P5 and P6 appeals respectively before the 1st respondent. Along with the above appeals the petitioner also moved two petitions for stay of the grant of two pucca permits on the two routes in question. As the 1st respondent was not functioning, the petitioner questioned Exts. P1, P2, P3 and P4 by Ext. P7 Original Petition (O.P. No. 1697 of 1974) before this Court. When Exts. P5 and P6 appeals and the above Original Petition were pending, the petitioner came to know in the first week of April that the two applications of the 5th respondent were notified in the Kerala Gazette dated 19-2-1974. Immediately he filed a representation before the 3rd respondent Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Palghat.