NARAYANANKUTTY Vs. R T A PALGHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two original petitions are directed against the judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ext. P7, dated 14th May, 1986. The reference to exhibits in this judgment will be to those marked in O.P. No. 4279/86. Two applicants applied for the grant of stage carriage permit on the route Palghat-Guruvayur. The R.T.A., Palghat by its decision dated 19 3-84 granted the permit in favour of Narayanankutty, who rejected the other application. That decision was challenged before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated 31-7-84, Ext. P2, set aside the grant in favour of Narayanankutty and remitted the case for fresh consideration of the applications by the R.T.A. After remand, the R.T.A, Palghat by its decision dated 31-1-1985 granted the permit in favour of the petitioner in O. P. No. 4279 of 1986, the Managing Partner of Mayilvahanam Roadlines, Shoranur. That decision was once again challenged before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated 27-6-1985 (Ext. P4) remitted the case for fresh consideration. The R.T.A. after fresh consideration took a decision as per Ext. P5 dated 3-12-1985 and granted the permit in favour of Narayanankutty. That decision was again challenged in appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated 14-5-1986, Ext. P7, granted the permit in favour of Smt. Rugmini Amma, the contesting respondent in both these writ petitions. It is the said decision that is challenged in these two writ petitions by Narayanankutty and the Managing Partner of Mayilvahanam Roadlines.

(2.) At the outset, a preliminary objection was raised by the Counsel for Rugmini Amma in both these writ petitions in regard to the maintainability of these writ petitions without all the contesting applicants being impleaded as parties. In the writ petition of Narayanankutty, he has not impleaded the Managing Partner of Mayilvahanam Roadlines and in the writ petition filed by Managing Partner of Mayilvahanam Roadlines, Naryanankutty has not been impleaded. But it is obvious that both these parties are before this court in the two cases. It is in this background that the learned counsel for the petitioners in these two cases took time and got the other applicant impleaded in these two writ petitions. Therefore the preliminary objection regarding maintainability for non joinder of necessary parties does not now survive.

(3.) The principal contention of the petitioners in these two cases is that the R.T.A. as also the State Transport Appellate Tribunal considered the merits of the rival applicants with reference to the date 19-3-1984 when the question of selecting a proper person for the grant of a stage carriage permit for the route was taken up for consideration and a decision was taken by the R.T.A. The contention of the petitioners is that that cannot be regarded as the first date of consideration of all the applications with reference to which date alone the merits of the rival applicants have to be assessed as laid down by this court in Cannanore District Motor Transport Employees' Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Malabar Public Conveyance ( 1962 KLT 446 (F.B.) and by the Division Bench of this court reported in Manikanda Kumar v. Ramakrishnan ( 1985 KLT 1026 ). This Court has consistently followed the aforesaid decisions holding that the assessment of merit of the applicants must be with reference to the date of first consideration by the R.T. A even in cases where the said decision is set aside by the Appellate Tribunal and the case is remitted for fresh consideration. The crucial date therefore is the date of first consideration of the applications on merits. The contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that though the date of first consideration of the applications in this case was 19-3-1984 that in law cannot be regarded as the date of first consideration. It is contended that Mayilvahanam Roadlines, the petitioner in O.P. No. 4279/86, was not duly served with the notice of the proceedings before the R.T. A. and he could not therefore participate in the proceedings before the R.T.A. on 19-3-1984. In such circumstances it cannot be said that there was consideration of all the applications on that date as required by law. This contention receives full support from the decision of this court rendered in W.A. No. 445/ 87 on 27th May, 1987. This is what has been laid down in the said case: