BALAKRISHNAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this writ petition is directed against the decision rendered by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in an appeal filed before it by the 3rd respondent herein under S.64 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) questioning the legality and correctness of the order Ext. P3 dated 27 8 1975 passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Cannanore sanctioning the grant of a pucca stage carriage permit in favour of the writ petitioner to operate a service on the route Kuthuparamba - Caonanare. There were only three valid applications before the Regional Transport Authority for the grant of the permit in question. The Regional Transport Authority was of the view that since the grant was in respect of a "short route" a new entrant should be encouraged and it was on that basis that the permit was sanctioned in favour of the writ petitioner. The 3rd respondent herein who was one amongst the three applicants is a cooperative society-the Cannanore District Motor Transport Employees Cooperative Society Ltd. In the appeal filed by the 3rd respondent Society before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal the main point urged by it was that the impugned grant had been made by the Regional Transport Authority overlooking the provision contained in R.117A(2) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1961 which lays down that in granting permits, other conditions being equal, an application for a stage carriage permit from a cooperative society, shall, as tar as may be, be given preference over applications from individual owners. This contention was upheld by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and accordingly by the judgment Ext P6 dated 26th October, 1976 it allowed the appeal filed by the 3rd respondent Society, set aside the grant of the permit made in favour of the writ petitioner by the Regional Transport Authority and directed the Regional Transport Authority to grant the permit to the 3rd respondent. This writ petition has been brought by the petitioner seeking to quash Ext. P6.

(2.) It is urged on behalf of the writ petitioner that since the route in respect of which the permit is being granted is a "short route" new entrants are entitled to preference over other applicants under sub-r.(3) of R.177A of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1961. The petitioner submits that the 3rd respondent Society is a fleet owner having as many as nine pucca permits and that hence the Regional Transport Authority had acted rightly in preferring the petitioner who is a new entrant for the grant of the permit. Unfortunately for the petitioner, the provisions of sub-r.(3) of the R.177A relied on by him are to operate only subject to the rule of preference laid down by sub-r.(2) of R.177A in favour of Cooperative Societies. Sub-r.(2) and (3) of R.177A omitting such portions as are not relevant for the purposes of this case read:

(3.) The original petition accordingly fails and it will stand dismissed but, in the circumstances, without any order as to costs.