JOY C.A Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This review petition is filed by the petitioner in O.P.(C). No.1784 of 2017. The Original Petition was disposed with two other petitions by a common judgment dated 2.8.2017. The predominant question came up for consideration was whether a temporary permit to ply a stage carriage with an overlapping sector greater than that is permitted by a nationalization scheme be granted to a private bus operator.

(2.) After hearing the learned counsel extensively, this Court disposed the petition with following observations: Reckoning the legal principles mentioned above and the factual situation revealed in this case, especially Ext.P8 scheme, I find that the petitioners failed to establish a case that the 1st respondent or any other private operator is not entitled to get a temporary permit, overlapping on a notified route, by invoking proviso to Section 104 of the Act. State Transport Authority or Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be, as a temporary measure and until STU puts vehicles on the route, can grant temporary permits to cater the need of travelling public. It is the bounden duty of the STU to cater the needs of the commuting public and if it fails to fulfil obligations, the Government should intervene and pass appropriate modifications/changes in the scheme so as to provide amenities to the passengers. It is for the Government and the authorities to take stock of the situation periodically and reconsider the notification, if STU could not discharge their obligations in the expected lines. Till then, the authorities may invoke power conferred on them by proviso to Section 104 of the Act.

(3.) Learned counsel for the review petitioner mainly contended that the STAT rendered the impugned order without calling for the records in violation of the principles in Vidyasagar v. RTA [1998 (2) KLT 383] and Babu v. RTA [2003 (2) KLT 216], and that this Court did not consider the challenge against Ext.P15 order passed by the RTA after remand of the case by the STAT. Further, it is contended by the learned counsel that factual aspects with respect to the consequential order passed by the RTA were not considered by this Court. On account of the present judgment, the petitioner is not in a position to challenge the order passed by the RTA (Ext.P15) especially when there is no finding on merit with respect to the legality or otherwise of Ext.P15 order. Yet another contention raised by the petitioner is that factual allegations regarding fraud and foul play committed by the 3rd respondent to obtain a permit was not considered by this Court.