RUGMINI AMMA Vs. R T A PALGHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a stage carriage operator, operating on various routes in the Trichur, Palghat and Malappuram Districts. She is inter alia operating on the route Guruvayur - Meenakshipuram with a vehicle KRH 7434.

(2.) The third respondent is operating a stage carriage KLG 5538 on a pucca permit on the route Guruvayur-Vellinezhi. He applied for variation of the permit by extending the service from Vellinezhi to Palghat. When the proposal was notified, petitioner objected on various grounds, which it is not necessary to state for the purpose of this original petition. The Regional Transport Authority considered the matter and approved the proposal by the proceedings Ext. P1 dated March 27, 1987. The petitioner filed revision petition M.V.A.R.P. No. 233 of 1987 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, challenging Ext. P1. Subsequently, the Regional Transport Authority granted regular variation of the third respondent's permit extending the route upto Palghat by the proceedings Ext. P2, which was also taken up in revision as M.V.A.R.P. No. 769 of 1987. Both these revision petitions are pending. Petitioner moved for stay of operation of the regular variation by Ext. P2 and the Tribunal stayed the operation of Ext. P2, pending the revision petition M.V.A.R.P. No. 769 of 1987. The third respondent could not therefore, operate on the extended portion of the route from Vellinezhi to Palghat despite the proceedings Ext. P2.

(3.) On receipt of the order of stay, the petitioner made representation to the Secretary to the Regional Transport Authority, namely the second respondent intimating him about the order of stay and requesting that the temporary permit which had been granted to the 3rd respondent to conduct service on the varied portion of the route be cancelled. A copy of the representation in Ext. P3. But what the Secretary did was to issue a further 20 days' short term temporary permit to the 3rd respondent on 21-5-1988 to conduct service on the varied portion of the route. He justified his action by referring to S.62(2)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (the Act). A copy of the second respondent's communication in this regard is Ext. P4. Petitioner challenges Ext. P4 with the submission that S.62(2)(i) applies only when the operation of the permit for the entire route, issued under S.48, is stayed, and not when the operation of the permit over a portion alone is stayed.