KSRTC Vs. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, TRIVANDRUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation represented by its General Manager has preferred this original petition seeking to quash the order Ex. P1 passed by the State Transport Authority, Ernakulam setting aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam dated 14-2-1964 whereby on the application for renewal of the permit of stage carriage K.L.K, 1822 which was plying between Ernakulam and Thalayolaparamba the Regional Transport Authority granted the renewal only subject to the curtailment of the portion between Ernakulam and Tripunithura on the ground that the said portion was covered by a notified scheme to the complete exclusion of all private operators.

(2.) The first ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the curtailment having been effected by the Regional Transport Authority under S.68F(2) of Chapter IVA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 its order was not liable to be revised by the State Transport Authority under S.64A. In support of this contention reliance was placed by counsel on the observations contained in the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Abdul Gafoor, Proprietor, Shasheen Motor Service, Channaryapatna v. State of Mysore, AIR 1961 SC 1556 , where it has been held:

(3.) The next contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner was that the ground stated by the State Transport Authority for setting aside the Regional Transport Authority's order and remanding the proceedings to the Regional Transport Authority is not one which, even if valid, would justify interference in revision by that tribunal. The main reason stated by the State Transport Authority in support of his interference in revision is that the refusal of a renewal of the 3rd respondent's permit was arbitrary and discriminatory in view of the grant of renewal of permits of various other private operators without any curtailment in respect of the portion of the route from Ernakulam to Tripunithura. That there had been such discrimination does not seem to have been denied before the State Transport Authority by the representative appearing on behalf of the State Transport Undertaking. In these circumstances even though there may be some merit in the technical plea advanced before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner I am not disposed to interfere with the order passed by the State Transport Authority in the exercise of my discretionary jurisdiction under Art.226, in as much as the order has only resulted in rectifying an injustice which apparently had been caused to the third respondent by reason of the discrimination practised as against him by the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam.