SONY KURIAN Vs. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is a stage carriage operator, operating on the route Mangapetta-Kottayam in respect of a stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-33/G-1269, has approached this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to Ext.P4 proceedings dated 13.10.2017 of the Regional Transport Authority, Idukki and also a writ of mandamus commanding the second respondent not to issue any further temporary permit to the third respondent on the route Changanachery-Balanpilla City in respect of stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-33/5004.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2. Considering the nature of the relief to be granted in this writ petition, notice to the third respondent is dispensed with.

(3.) As far as the challenge made against Ext.P4 proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority, Idukki dated 13.10.2017 is concerned, it can be challenged before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal by filing a revision under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Therefore, if the petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P4, he has to avail the statutory remedy under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, instead of approaching this Court by filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the challenge made against Ext.P4 in this writ petition is repelled as not maintainable, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to avail statutory remedy under Section 90 of the said Act.