SANKARANARAYANAN Vs. S T A T ERNAKULAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This original petition is filed under Art.226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash Ext. P4 judgment of the first respondent, State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam. Learned Government Pleader appears for respondents 2 and 3 and Sri K. Radhakrishnan takes notice for fourth respondent.

(2.) The second respondent issued notification inviting applications for grant of temporary permit for four months on the newly introduced route Marayamangalam Athirkad. The notification stipulated, inter alia, that the applicant should conform to R.177A(3B)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Rules wherein it is stated that along with the application the applicant should produce clearance certificate relating, inter alia, to payment of motor vehicles tax in respect of vehicles owned by or in the possession of the applicant. Petitioner, 4th respondent and another submitted applications. The application of the fourth respondent was screened and rejected since he did not produce the motor vehicle tax clearance certificate as per Rules. Among the other two candidates, the RTA preferred the petitioner. Ext. P1 is a copy of the decision. Fourth respondent challenged the decision in appeal before the Tribunal. Ext. P2 is a copy of the Memorandum of Appeal. Ext. P3 is a copy of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the present petitioner. By Ext. P4 judgment the Tribunal set aside the decision in Ext. P1. The period of the temporary permit is 28-3-1987 to 27-7-1987. Since the Tribunal delivered the judgment on 21-7-1987 and a few days only remained for the expiry of the permit, the Tribunal refrained from remanding the matter for fresh consideration at the hands of the RTA and allowed the present petitioner to conduct service until the expiry of the period. This judgment is now challenged.

(3.) The short question for consideration is whether the RTA was justified in screening and rejecting the application of the 4th respondent or whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the decision of the RTA was wrong. The decision on this controversy depends on the question whether the fourth respondent did conform to R.177A(3B)(a). R.177A(3B)(a) requires each applicant to produce along with his application certain documents specified in the sub clauses. Sub clause (a) reads: