SANKARAN NAIR Vs. R T A KOTTAYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This original petition is to quash Ext. P4 order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam. By this order the Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam passed on 21 4 1977 granting a temporary permit to the petitioner on the route Palai Vaikom. By Ext. P4 order allowing the appeal tiled against the order of the Regional Transport Authority by the 3rd respondent here the Appellate Authority further directed the grant of a temporary permit for a period of 4 months from the date of issue to the 3rd respondent herein for his bus K.L.O. 4626 on the route Palai Vaikom.

(2.) The question is one of competing claims between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent for the issue of temporary permit in the route Palai Vaikom. The petitioner is owner and permit bolder of stage carriages KLD 2237 and KLD 64. His bus KLD 64 was operating in the route Vaikom Palai from 28 7 1976 in the vacancy of a bus KLR 311. The Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam invited applications for the reissue of a temporary permit in the vacancy of KLR 311. The petitioner was an applicant. The 3rd respondent also applied. The Regional Transport Authority considered the applications on 26 7 1976 and granted the permit to the 3rd respondent. Against that the petitioner filed an appeal before the 4th respondent, State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam., Having met with defeat he filed a petition to this Court as O. P 5458 of 1976. Certain observations made by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal against the petitioner were directed to be ignored when the question of issue of fresh temporary permit on the same route was considered by the Regional Transport Authority. Such question was again considered by the Regional Transport Authority at its meeting held on 3 12 1976 and the permit was again granted to the 3rd respondent. The petitioner filed an appeal against this before the 4th respondent and this appeal was disposed of with the observation that the claims of the petitioner should be considered when the question of reissue of permit was taken up.

(3.) When the question of reissue of permit was so taken up, the petitioner and 3rd respondent filed applications. The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation had published a scheme of nationalisation to the complete exclusion of private operations, proposing to nationalise the services on the route inclusive of Palai Vaikom sector. This was under S.68C of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is the petitioner's case that in view of such exclusion he had filed the application for issue of temporary permit under S.68F(1C) of the Motor Vehicles Act. He would also say that the 3rd respondent, instead applying under that Section, had moved an application under S.62 of the Motor Vehicles Act. These applications came up before the Regional Transport Authority on 19-4-1977 and 21-4-1977. Consequent on consideration by the Regional Transport Authority permit was granted to the petitioner. It was issued to him for the period from 27 4 1977 to 26-8-1977. Against this the 3rd respondent filed Motor Vehicles Appeal No. 119 of 1977 before the 4th respondent. It is the petitioner's case that when the matter came up before the Appellate Authority it was urged by him that the application by the 3rd respondent was not in order and further that even if the application was proper, the grant of permit to the petitioner was not liable to be set aside, since the petitioner had superior qualifications. By his judgment dated 10-8-1977 the 4th respondent allowed the appeal and granted permit to the 3rd respondent for a period of 4 months from the date or issue. It is this order, Ext. P4, that is challenged.