P C VELAYUDHAN Vs. C L VARKEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are disposing of these writ applications by a single judgment because they raise a common question. And the common question is whether the Regional Transport Authority acted against the mandatory provisions contained in the first proviso to S.62 of the Motor Vehicles Act in granting temporary permits to the second respondent in each of these writ applications on the route Kottayam to Ernakulam via Vaikom.

(2.) The facts are the following: The petitioner in O. P. No. 3154 of 1965 was an applicant for the issue of a stage carriage permit on the route Kottayam Ernakulam via Vaikom. During the pendency of his application for such a permit on the motion of the second respondent a temporary permit has been issued to him on the identical route.

(3.) The petitioner in O. P. No. 3196 of 1965 holds two regular permits one from Kottayam to Vaikom and another from Vaikom to Ernakulam. Applications were pending before the Regional Transport Authority made by other persons for regular permits on the route Kottayam Ernakulam via Vaikom. It was then that the second respondent to this writ application moved before the Regional Transport Authority for the grant of a temporary permit on the route Kottayam Ernakulam via Vaikom and this too has been granted. The grants are evidenced by Ext. P-5 in O. P. 3154 and Ext. P-1 in O. P. 3196. These orders are impugned in these writ applications.