K R SURENDRAN Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned writ petitions are materially connected in respect of order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT) in M.V.A.R.P No.30 of 2016 dated 12.04.2017. W.P.(C) No. 19169 of 2017 is challenging the said order marked as Ext.P7, whereas W.P.(C) No.33151 of 2017 is filed seeking implementation of the said order, which is marked as Ext.P8. Therefore, I heard them together and propose to deliver a common judgment.

(2.) Petitioners in W.P.(C) No.19169 of 2017 are stage carriage operators conducting service on the strength of regular permits, evident from Ext.P1 series of document. Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.33151 of 2017 is the 3rd respondent in the other writ petition.

(3.) By Ext.P2 proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 12.03.2015, 3rd respondent was granted with a regular permit on the route Triprayar-Chavakkad-Thrissur, a route that substantially overlaps the routes covered by Ext.P1 series of permits issued to the petitioners. Even though regular permit was granted to the 3rd respondent subject to settlement of timings, the 3rd respondent, alleging delay in the settlement of timings and consequential issue of the sanctioned permit, filed W.P.(C) No.18851 of 2015 and secured Ext.P3 judgment, directing to issue permit after affording the affected parties an opportunity of being heard.