K THANKACHAN Vs. R T A ALLEPPY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A common question has been raised in these writ applications and they arise out of an order passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Alleppey, at its proceedings dated 22 2 1965. On that day various applications filed by the petitioners before me in these writ applications for renewal of their permits were heard and a decision was taken not to renew those applications without curtailing the permits. So the applications were allowed only in part. These are by orders which have been produced along with these writ applications. It is unnecessary to refer to those in detail for they stem from the same decision and are in effect and scope only this that the permits cannot be renewed in their entirety because the permits were for operating on routes parts of which fell within the routes regarding which a scheme has been published under S.68 D (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The scheme that has been published under S.68 (c) of the Act is Ext. P1, which is the proposal and as finally approved as required by S.68 (d) of the Act, is Ext. P-2. Here again it is unnecessary to go into greater details for, in all these cases it is admitted on all hands that the scheme published impinged in some manner or other on the routes for which permits were held by the petitioners and that all the petitioners had to run along the road pertaining to routes relating to which the scheme has been published at least for some distance.

(2.) The three contentions raised in these writ applications on behalf of the petitioners are: (1) that the decision of the Regional Transport Authority was taken by only three of its five members though all the five members heard the matter at its proceedings on 22 2 1965. This according to the petitioners is not a decision of the Regional Transport Authority and is therefore invalid and even void; (2) the decision itself was taken pursuant to a direction from the Government which amounted to an unwarranted interference with the exercise of a quasi judicial function and which interference had influenced the decision. The decision must therefore be set aside on that ground; arid (3) the scheme published at best can only be said to be a scheme in partial exclusion of existing operators on the route and the curtailment of the permits is unwarranted.

(3.) I do not think that I should deal with either point No. 2 or 3 in these writ applications because I feel that the case can be disposed of on the 1st point. Before elaborating on this I shall refer to the section of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, under which the Regional Transport Authority is constituted. This is S.44 (2) which runs thus: