M BHASKARAN NAIR Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY MALAPPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When C.M.P. 2396/89 came up for orders, counsel appearing on either side wanted the original petition itself disposed of. Accordingly, I heard them in detail. I am disposing of the original petition.

(2.) The first respondent, the Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram at its meeting held on 18-8-1988 accepted proposal for the introduction of a new stage carriage service on the route Parappur-Anjumoola (via) Kottakkal Puthonothani, Valancherry and Thiruvegappura and one in the opposite direction Anjumoola-Parappur and decided to invite application for temporary permit and pucca permit. In response to the notification issued under S.57(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, 5 persons filed their Applications. Those applications were sent for publication under S.57(3) of the Act. It was so published in the Gazette dated 20-12-1988. In the application put in by the third respondent, against column No. 6 the number of the vehicle was given as K.L.M. 3831 or later model. In the notification under S.57(3) of the Act, the number of his vehicle was shown as K.R.M. 3831 or later model. Vehicle bearing reg. No. K.R.M. 3831 was later to K.L.M. 3831 and it was a jeep. Coming to know of this mistake, the second respondent issued an erratum notification evidenced by Ext. P4 dated 10-1-1989.

(3.) The first notification under S.57 (3) of the Act was dated 20-12-1988. The period for filing the representation as per that notification was to expire on 19-1-1989. The erratum notification Ext. P4 was issued on 10-1-1989. The 30 days from the date of that erratum notification was to expire only on 9-2-1989. The first respondent took action to consider the application for the issue of the pucca permit on the route at its meeting scheduled on 30-1-1989. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by 30-1-1989 the 30 days period from Ext. P4 notification will not be over and so the applications should not have been posted for consideration at the meeting to be held on 30-1-1989. In the application put in by the petitioner against column No. 6 he had given the following details:-