A GOIPINATHA MENON Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the owner of the two stage carriage permits one operating on the route Kallettunkara to Kattoor via Irinjalakuda, and the other on the route Enammavu to Irinjalakuda, via Thriprayar, in the Trichur District, The 2nd respondent is the owner of a stage carriage permit on the route Puthenvelikkara to Irinjalakuda covering, it is alleged a distance of 22 miles. The 2nd respondent applied to the 1st respondent for a temporary variation of its route by extension of the same upto Thriprayar, a further distance, it is alleged of 14 miles. The same was rejected by the 1st respondent by order dated 16-8-1962, (Ex. R-1) which reads as follows:

(2.) The petitioner's counsel urged that Ex. P-3 cannot be regarded as a proper disposal by the 1st respondent in the manner required or contemplated by the provisions of the Statute, that it violates the rules of natural justice in so far as it was not a "speaking order" and gave no indication of having taken into account the objections evidenced by Ex. P-2, and that the order was mala fide. It was also argued by the petitioner's counsel that route is not a condition of the permit and the variation of the conditions of the permit which alone is contemplated by S.57(8) of the Motor Vehicles Act, would not comprehend a variation of the route.

(3.) Save the last of the contentions, the rest of the submissions urged by the petitioner's counsel seem to me, to ultimately revolve on the question whether there has been a quasi judicial order by the 1st respondent after applying its judicial mind to the question before it Mala fides was sought to he made out only on the ground that there had not been a proper compliance with the requirements of the statute.