T.J. RAJU Vs. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject matter of the captioned writ petitions are substantially connected and therefore I propose to dispose of them by a common judgment. Wherever specific facts are required, same will be mentioned separately. The facts discernible from W.P.(C) No.24089/2016, and the documents produced thereunder are recited, and relied on respectively, to dispose of these writ petitions.

(2.) Petitioner is a stage carriage operator from 1.10.2014 to 22.2.2016, for more than 14 months. Petitioner was permitted to conduct service on the route Poothatta -Aluva on the strength of successive temporary permits issued under Section 87 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), evident from Exts.P1 and P1(a) to P1(g) series. The above permits were issued to operate 'city service' in the vacant timings of a defaulted stage carriage bearing No.KL 40/A 6031. However, when petitioner applied for re -issue of temporary permit to operate the service in continuation of Ext.P1(g) permit valid till 22.2.2016, said application was rejected by the respondent by Ext.P2 order dated 22.12.2015.

(3.) In Ext.P2 the first respondent admits that, the regular permit issued to the route bus was surrendered and cancelled during the year 2010, that consequent to the withdrawal of the route bus, other stage carriages, including that of the petitioner were being issued with temporary permits under Section 87 to do substitute service, and that the vacant timings of the route bus are still in existence and therefore, there exists a temporary need for the grant of permit on the proposed route. However, first respondent has declined temporary permit on the ground, proposed route objectionably overlaps Trivandrum -Kannur notified route covered by the approved scheme of nationalization dated 14.07.2009 and that the third respondent herein vehemently objected grant of temporary permit allegedly due to objectionable overlapping. According to the petitioners, the objection raised by the third respondent cannot be sustained since, from Ext.P2, it is clear, third respondent is not conducting service on the proposed route with the same set of timings, nor has the third respondent filed any application for grant of permit. However, as per the interim order dated 22.2.2016 in W.P.(C)No.5827/2016 this Court directed the first respondent to re -consider the application for temporary permit put in by the petitioner as one filed under the proviso to Section 104 of the Act.