YUSUF Vs. R T A ERNAKULAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a stage carriage operator. He has filed this writ petition challenging Exts. P3 and P4 orders of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and the Regional Transport Authority respectively. Originally, by Ext. P2 order, a variation applied for by the 3rd respondent for his permit was rejected. That was challenged by the 3rd respondent before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, by Ext. P3 judgment, allowed the appeal and directed the respondents to grant variation sought for, subject to settlement of timings. Pursuant thereto, Ext. P4 order was passed by the RTA granting variation subject to settlement of timings. The petitioner challenges Exts. P3 and P4 on the ground that this is against the second proviso to S.80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The contention is that the 3rd respondent has requested for curtailment of the existing route as well as extension of the route. According to the petitioner, curtailment together with extension would come to more than 24 kilometres, which would violate the second proviso to S.80(3) of the Act.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent taking the stand that in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Binu Chacko v. R.T.A., Pathanamthitta, 2006 KHC 349 : 2006 (2) KLT 172 : ILR 2006 (1) Ker. 863 : AIR 2006 Ker. 177, wherein a Full Bench has held that existing operator cannot challenge a permit granted to another operator, this writ petition is not maintainable. According to the 3rd respondent, that prohibition is extended to variation of permit also by Ext. R3(a) judgment of this Court in WP (C) No. 21281/2007. Therefore, according to the 3rd respondent, the challenge by the petitioner against Exts. P3 and P4 orders is incompetent. He would further submit that on merits also, there is no case for the petitioner insofar as the second proviso to S.80(3) prohibits variation exceeding 24 kilometres and that does not contemplate adding of variation in respect of curtailment to variation in respect of extension for the purpose of calculating the distance stipulated in the proviso. According to the 3rd respondent, taken separately, the curtailment does not exceed 24 kilometres and the extension also does not exceed 24 kilometres. Therefore, according to the 3rd respondent, there is no violation of the second proviso to S.80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Thirdly, the 3rd respondent would contend that in any event, the petitioner is not in any way affected by the variation granted and therefore, he has no locus standi to challenge the orders.

(3.) I have considered the rival contentions in detail.