S. SANDESH Vs. K.A. THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition raises a question basic to the functioning of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, referred to hereinafter as 'the Tribunal'. Having regard to the recurring nature of such a question, it is desirable that it is considered and dealt with elaborately, so that the decision may serve for future guidance.

(2.) It is better to relegate to a later stage the claims and counter claims of the contending operators in an understandable scramble for permit.

(3.) The petitioner relied on Ext. P4 order of the Tribunal to show that in almost similar situation, the Tribunal allowed the original grantee of a temporary permit to operate during an intervening period. Counsel for the respondents submitted that in relation to the very route, the pattern of orders passed by the Tribunal was of a different nature. In such cases, the Tribunal did not permit the original grantee to operate during such intervening period. As indicated earlier, the manner in which the Tribunal functioned on one occasion or another, need not be given much of emphasis or importance. A comet of a season can in no sense be a guiding star.