SANTHOSH KUMAR Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Original Petition is filed challenging Ext. P6 proceedings passed by the second respondent/Regional Transport Authority, Trivandrum. Second respondent decided to grant a regular permit on the route, Poonthura-Pappanamcode in Trivandrum city. But the regular permit was not issued, as the grantee did not produce the current records and because of the pendency of O.P.No. 16137/95 before this Court. The route is reserved for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe.

(2.) Thereafter, it was decided to grant temporary permit on the route. By Ext. P1 dt. 18.12.1995, Regional Transport Authority, Trivandrum decided to grant temporary permit for 20 days on the route to the petitioner. On the expiry of the permit, there were two applications; one by the petitioner and the other by the third, respondent. Secretary preferred the petitioner on the ground that he is operating on the route. This is evidenced by Ext. P2 order dt. 6.1.1996. Subsequently, applications for temporary permit for four months were considered by the Regional Transport Authority. By proceedings dated 8.2.1996 (evidenced by Ext. P3), Regional Transport Authority decided to grant permit to the third respondent on the ground that he has offered latest model vehicle. Ext. P3 proceedings was challenged by the petitioner by filing M. V. A. A. 457/96 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam. Appeal was disposed of by Ext. P4 judgment. Tribunal found that the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority to be defective, but was of the view that it was not necessary to set aside the permit. It directed the Regional Transport Authority and the Secretary to consider the relative merits of the applicants and award marks as required by R.145 of the Motor Vehicles Rules and if the permit is not granted in accordance with the marks to specifically state the reasons when they deal with such applications. Both the petitioner and the third respondent challenged Ext P4 before this Court by filing O.P. No. 9811/96 and O.P. No. 9471/96 respectively. In O.P. No. 9471/96 an interim order was passed staying the operation of Ext. P4 in so far as it fetters the discretion of respondents 1 and 2. Subsequently, both the original petitions were disposed of by judgment dt 21.6.1996. Original Petitions were disposed of by clarifying that the statutory authority will exercise its discretion conferred by the statute uninfluenced by the declaration for any higher authority including the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. In the meanwhile, the permit issued was to expire and hence the second respondent considered the applications for temporary permit and by order dt. 27.6.1996 decided to grant the same to the third respondent - Ext. P6. Third respondent was preferred because he secured more marks.

(3.) Ext P6 is challenged on various grounds. It was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of being heard in the matter. Secretary did not look into the judgment of this Court in the Original Petitions which were filed challenging Ext. P4. It was passed with haste to favour the third respondent. Third respondent does not satisfy the requirement of eligibility for the grant of the permit. According to the petitioner, the documents produced by the third respondent (Exts. P7 and P8) create a suspicion as to the place of business and residence of the third respondent. The marks awarded to the third respondent are not correct Petitioner lost the opportunity of producing the current records of the latest model vehicle.