SIMON Vs. RTA ALLEPPEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, The petitioner is Mr. Simon, proprietor, Simon Motors, Ayiroor, Thiruvalla. The complaint is that the 1st respondent, Regional Transport Authority, Alleppey, issued wrongly, according to the petitioner four temporary stage carriage permits for the period 16-2-1959 to 23-2-1959 for four State Transport buses represented by the 2nd respondent, Director of State Transport, Trivandrum.

(2.) On 6-2-1959 a Notification Ext. C dated 3-2-1959 was published by the 1st respondent inviting applications on or before 13-2-1959 from all bus operators in the Quilon and Alleppey Districts for issue of special permits in connection with the religious gathering or convention held annually at Maramon. The 2nd respondent accordingly made application and got the four permits herein on 12-2-1959 for the Thiruvella-Maramon route concerned. Petitioner is an operator on the Kozhencheri-Ranni and Thiruvella-Ranni routes and so was interested in opposing the 2nd respondent and also applying for himself in the matter of these permits. His objection Ext. D was dated 12-2-1959 and took the ground that the State Transport Buses were of more laden weight than 4 tons which the road could at all support. This objection was rejected because it was received after the grant of the permits. However the 1st respondent authority satisfied itself that the route was roadworthy from the point of view of the State Transport Buses, before actually they were put on the route vide Ext. R 1 report of the Executive Engineer dated 16-2-1959. Petitioner's application for two temporary permits was made on 13-2-1959 within the time and was in the usual course granted. Petitioner was still aggrieved and came forward with this petition on 16-2-1959 praying for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the issue of the temporary permits to the 2nd respondent. This petition is resisted by the 1st respondent.

(3.) Two points were taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The first was that the 1st respondent authority was wrong in not waiting for and considering representations if any, that might be made against the 2nd respondent before granting them temporary permits as per their application. Secondly, Ext. C notification forbade the 1st respondent in any event from granting the 2nd respondent's application on 12-2-1959, before the expiry of 13-2-1959, which was the last day fixed under it.