K. RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR Vs. RTA MALAPPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What exactly is the scope and effect of sub-s.(3) of S.47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Act') That is the question which arises for consideration in this original petition.

(2.) Ext. P1 is a notification issued by the R.T.A., Malappuram under Sec, 57 (2) of the Act inviting applications for issue of regular stage carriage permits to ply on several routes mentioned therein, one of the routes being Karakkad Mukkilapeedika - changaramkulam. Petitioner, third respondent and two others submitted applications. R. T. A. considered the applications and decided to grant permit to one of the applicants, P. Sadaka Haji. R. T. A. felt that there was need for one more permit on the route to run on the opposite direction so as to cater to the needs of the pilgrims visiting Kannenkavu temple. Additional permit was granted to petitioner herein and the other applications were rejected. R. T. A. directed the secretary to settle the timings in a conference. Ext. P2 is a copy of the proceedings of the R. T. A. Third respondent, who is a regular stage carriage operator on the route Kuttipuram - Kunnamkulam (it is said that the two routes are common for the some distance) filed M. V. A. R. P. 270/84 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal challenging only the grant of permit to the petitioner S.T.A.T under Ext. P4 order set aside the decision of the R.T.A. to grant additional permit to the petitioner on the ground that the R.T.A had limited the grant of permits to one and under S.47(3) of the Act it had no jurisdiction to grant an additional permit. This order is now challenged under Art.226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Main contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner are the S.47(3) of the Act would not apply to the facts of the case that R.T.A had not placed any limitation on the number of permits to be issued that determination of number of permits to be issued at a particular time is different from limitation of permits and in the particular case there was no such limitation placed by the R.T.A. Learned counsel also contended that P. Sadaka Haji, the successful applicant was a necessary party to the revision and an revision could not have been allowed in his absence, that the petitioner could at best have grievance about timings and since timings have been settled, the Tribunal should not have interfered. Learned counsel also invited my attention to sub-s.(2) of S.134 of the Act and contended that there might have been irregularity or error in the proceedings of the R.T.A. but since it had not occasioned failure of justice the Tribunal should not have interfered.