(1.) THIS writ petition raises a question under the Motor Vehicles Act. 1939. The petitioner and the 4th respondent were applicants for a stage carriage permit on the route Pazhayannur -Govindapuram. While the petitioner filed the application within time, the 4th respondent submitted it, beyond. Ext P2 is the Gazette publication of the applications. In the case of the 4th respondent the publication itself indicated that his application was late by 8 days.
(2.) ON . 26 -2 -1985 the Regional Transport Authority (RTA, for short) considered -he applications It took a decision to reject all the applications and for re -notification The reasons mentioned were: that the applicant No.2 did not press his claim, that no one had ready vehicles, and that applicant No. 3 had not applied in time.
(3.) THE petitioner is happy about the order to the extent that it has allowed her appeal. There is, however, a anag as far as she is concerned The appeal of the 4th respondent was also allowed. That means an entry into the arena of one more competitor. If that could be warded off, the petitioner could be happier Whether that is legally feasible is a matter which has to be dealt with in this original petition, in which the petitioner challenges that portion of Ext. P4 judgment by which the 4th respondent's appeal was also allowed and his application has also been directed to be considered.