K. MOIDNNNI Vs. B. SASIKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The attack in this O. P. is against the order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (5th respondent), evidenced by Ext. P-5, dated 19th Aug., 1985, setting aside Ext, P-2 order, dated 23rd April, 1985, passed by the 2nd respondent the Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram. The petitioner, as well as the 1st respondent herein, are stage-carriage operators. The petitioner is conducting a service in the route Ponnani - Calicut Medical College, a distance of about 98 kilometres. He applied for variation of permit and extension from Ponnani to Chavakkad. The 1st respondent is the objector. The sector from Ponnani to Chavakkad is 22 kilometres. The rough sketch of the road is available at page 8 of the O. P. By Ext. P-2, dated 23rd April, 1985, the 2nd respondent overruled the objections raised by the 1st respondent and granted the variation requested by the petitioner, in view of the concurrence received from the R. T. A., Trichur. The 1st respondent carried the matter by way of revision before the 5th respondent. The revision petition is Ext. P-3. By Ext. P-5 order, the 5th respondent found that the 2nd respondent (R. T. A.) did not consider the objections of the 1st respondent, that Ext. P-2 order is perfunctory and the opening of a bridge was relied on as a pretext to grant variation and so there is misuse of the power by the 2nd respondent. The Tribunal also referred to the fact that by the extension of the route up to "Calicut" altogether a new service has been granted by Ext. P-2. The variation of the permit granted to the petitioner was nullified. The petitioner attacks Ext. P-5 order in this O. P.

(2.) I heard counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Sumathi Dandapani, learned Government Pleader who appeared for respondents 2 and 5, and Mr. Anil Sivaraman who appeared for the 1st respondent. It was argued that the STAT failed to apply its mind when it stated that what has been done by the RTA in Ext. P-2 is to extend the route up to "Calicut" and variation of the route up to "Calicut" was granted by Ext. P-2. Counsel urged that this is a patent mistake. Services were already plying from Medical College, Calicut, to Ponnani, a distance of 98 kilometers. By variation the route was extended from Ponnani to Chavakkad, 22 kilometres. It is not a case where the route was extended up to "Calicut". This patent mistake will show that the STAT did not apply its mind in passing Ext. P-5 order. Ext. P-5 therefore deserves to be set aside.

(3.) It is common ground that the 2nd respondent (Regional Transport Authority) is exercising a quasi judicial function in granting variation of a permit. As a quasi judicial authority it is bound to act fairly. The order passed by it should be supported by reasons. In this case Ext. P-2 order passed by the Regional Transport Authority is laconic. It is perfunctory. It stands self-condemned. Ext, P-2 order, passed by the 2nd respondent has failed to disclose clearly and explicitly the reasons in support of the order. This is a basic requirement. In the absence of reasons, Ext. P-2 is illegal. The illegality is akin to the violation of the principles of natural justice. It has been so held in The Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Company of India Limited Vs. The Union of India, AIR 1976 SC 1785 at page 1789 . The STAT was justified in holding that Ext P-2 order is perfunctory, that the 2nd respondent failed to consider the objections of the 1st respondent and that the power vested in the 2nd respondent was misused to grant variation. On this short ground, Ext. P-5 order passed by the 5th respondent annulling Ext. P-2 order passed by the RAT, is justified. It does not require interference.