THOMAS Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AURTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are stage carriage operators. They operate services on an inter-regional route. Permit was obtained by the second petitioner for the service in the year 1999 and the first petitioner in the year 2000. The grants in favour of the petitioners were subject to condition that they should obtain countersignatures from the sister Regional Transport Authorities for operation of the services within their jurisdiction. The petitioners have, accordingly, obtained countersignatures on their permits from all the sister Regional Transport Authorities and were operating services on that basis. The permits granted to the petitioners were renewed on their applications later upto the year 2009 and 2010 respectively by the first respondent, the primary Regional Transport Authority, after obtaining orders of concurrence from the sister Regional Transport Authorities. Later, when the petitioners applied for renewal of the permits for the period upto the year 2014 and 2015 respectively, the first respondent again sought and obtained orders of concurrence from the sister Regional Transport Authorities. Exhibits P2 series are the orders of concurrence obtained by the first respondent for renewal of the permits of the petitioners. It is stated by the petitioners that though orders of concurrence have been obtained from the sister Regional Transport Authorities for renewal of the permits of the petitioners during the year 2012 itself, the first respondent is yet to renew the permits on account of the objection raised by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. Consequently, the petitioners are operating services based on temporary permits. In the meanwhile, since the term for which renewal was sought by the petitioners expired, the petitioners have applied for renewal of the permits for the period upto the year 2019 and 2020 respectively also. Exhibit P4 series are the applications preferred by the petitioners for renewal of their permits in this connection. Since orders have not been passed on the applications for renewal preferred by the petitioners for the former period, Ext.P4 series applications for renewal of the permits for the latter period have not been taken up, submit the petitioners. It is alleged by the petitioners that the first respondent is taking the stand that orders of concurrence are to be obtained from the sister Regional Transport Authorities again for considering Ext.P4 series applications. According to the petitioners, since they have obtained countersignatures on the permits from all the sister Regional Transport Authorities, it is not necessary for the first respondent to obtain orders of concurrence from the sister Regional Transport Authorities for considering Ext.P4 series applications and the petitioners, therefore, seek directions to the first respondent to consider Ext.P4 series of applications without insisting orders of concurrence from the sister Regional Transport Authorities. Alternatively, the petitioners pray for a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P4 series applications on the basis of Ext.P2 series orders of concurrence.

(2.) A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. In the statement, the respondents do not deny the case of the petitioners that the first respondent is taking the stand that orders of concurrence are to be obtained from the sister Regional Transport Authorities for considering Ext.P4 series applications. On the other hand, it is reiterated by the respondents that the applications preferred by the petitioners for renewal of the permits cannot be considered without obtaining orders of concurrence from the sister Regional Transport Authorities.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Special Government Pleader.