(1.) Exts. P7 and P8 orders of 3rd respondent, State Transport Appellate Tribunal are challenged herein under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. Copy of the original petition has been served on the learned Liaison Officer. Fourth respondent has appeared through counsel.
(2.) First respondent, R. T. A., Malappuram issued pucca permit on the Parappanangadi-Kadampuzha temple route to the 4th respondent and another. Subsequently the 4th respondent applied for extension of the route up to Mulayankavu, a place situated within Palghat District. It is stated that the extension sought is for a distance of 24 kms. put of which 13.4 kms lies within Palghat District. Application was notified calling for objections. The petitioner was one of the objectors. R.T.A., Malappuram sought concurrence of R.T.A., Palghat. R.T.A., Palghat refused concurrence as per Ext. P3 order. No appeal has been filed against this decision. In pursuance to this decision the first respondent rejected the 4th respondent's application under Ext, P4 order. Fourth respondent has filed an appeal against Ext. P4 order and the same is pending. Later he filed suo motu application before the first respondent seeking the issue of a temporary permit for 20 days on the extended route. He also filed O.P.No. 10592/84 complaining of non disposal of the application. The original petition was disposed of by this Court under Ext. P5 directing an expeditious disposal of the application for temporary permit for 20 days. Thereafter the Secretary to the R.T.A., Malappuram, second respondent, considered the application for temporary permit for 20 days and rejected the same for the reasons mentioned in Ext. P6. The 4th respondent filed an appeal before the S.T.A.T., Ernakulam challenging Ext. P6 order without impleading the objector, the present petitioner. The 4th respondent also filed M.P. No. 49/85 before the Tribunal seeking a direction to the second respondent to issue a temporary permit for 20 days. After hearing the appellant the Tribunal ordered notice and issued a direction as prayed for as per Ext. P7 order. Thereafter the petitioner herein filed two applications before the Tribunal, one for impleadment and the other to vacate the interim order. The petitioner was impleaded but M.P. No. 68/85 seeking to vacate the interim order has been rejected under Ext. P8 order.
(3.) S.63 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, the Act) deals with validation of permit for use outside region in which granted. With reference to the power of R.T.As sub-section (1) of S.63 states that except as otherwise prescribed, a permit granted by the R.T.A. of one region shall not be valid in any other region, unless the permit has been countersigned by the R.T.A. of the other region. This rule has exceptions as contemplated in the provisos to sub-section (1). Sub-section (4) of S.63 states that the R.T.A. of one region may issue a temporary permit under clause (a) or (c) of sub-section (1) to S.62 to be valid in another region with the concurrence, given generally or for the particular occasion of the R.T.A. of that other region. In other words what the provisions of the section contemplate is that subject to the exceptions provided therein, the R.T.A. of one region cannot grant a permit to be valid within the jurisdiction of another R.T.A., except with the counter signature or concurrence as the case may be of the latter.