SUVESH.P Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge Ext.P5 judgment in MVAA No.248/2017 of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam and the consequent Ext.P7 order of the RTA dated 14/8/2018.

(2.) The 4th respondent herein had applied for regular permit on the route Beypore -Pulimoodu-Puthippa. That application was rejected by the RTA on 23/6/2016 on the ground that the vehicle held by the 4 th respondent was not disclosed, that it was city permit route and that the route was not wide enough to ply stage carriages. This was challenged by the 4th respondent in MVAA No.118/2016 before the STAT, Ernakulam contending that it was not a city service route and that the vehicle particulars need only be produced after the grant of permit.

(3.) The learned Tribunal by its order dated 17/11/2016 held that under Rule 159 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, applicant need only produce the vehicle particulars after the grant of the permit. It was held that the reasoning that road was narrow was not , since the road fitness certificate was issued by the concerned authority. It was found that under Rule 71(3) notification was issued in relation to Calicut town, wherein the maximum limit of permit permissible was fixed as 400. It was held by the Tribunal that the service was sought through a coastal area which was constructed recently. Whether it was a city route has to be considered on the basis of a separate plan and report to be submitted by the field officer. RTA was directed to consider the application afresh.