KERALA TRANSPORT COMPANY Vs. SANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Does a revision lie under S.64A of the Motor Vehicles Act before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal against a notification This court had answered the question way back in 1973 in the negative. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal felt that that answer was confined to the facts of that case. The Tribunal therefore, in this case, answered in the affirmative. Is the State Transport Appellate Tribunal correct in the affirmative answer is the question which I have to consider in this Original Petition.

(2.) A few facts before I grapple with that question. Petitioner is playing a stage carriage KRZ 3237 on the route Badagara - Perintalmanna. He thought that he could extend the service from Perintalmanna to Palghat and filed an application for a temporary permit from Perintalmanna to Palghat in continuation of the existing permit. On receipt of that application, the third respondent Regional Transport Authority issued Ext. P1 notification giving particulars of the proposed extension and intimating, that "those who have got any objection or representation in this regard may do so in writing to the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Palghat on or before 17-5-1988". The notification also stated, that belated objections would not be considered. The first respondent filed an objection on 16-5-1988. Normally, the Regional Transport Authority would have considered the proposal and the objections at one of its meeting to be held thereafter. The first respondent did not wait for any such meeting. He filed a revision petition on 19th May, 1988. Copy of that revision petition is Ext. P2. He stated, that he applied for a Certified copy of the notification on 16-5-1983 and on the very same day he filed the objection against the proposal He stated that "the petitioner is highly aggrieved of the impugned notification. Hence the same is challenged on the following among other grounds". The first ground was that there was no adequate publication of the notification and there was no sufficient time for other operators to file objections or representations. He had filed Ext. P3 application for stay, along with the revision petition.

(3.) The State Transport Appellate Tribunal passed a very curious order Ext. P4, on 24-5-1988. It is worth extracting that order: