M BASHEER AHMAD Vs. R GOVINDARAJULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH of these revision petitions can be dealt with under a common order. The parties will be referred to by their names to avoid any confusion.

(2.) APPLICATIONS were invited for the grant of a stage carriage permit on the route from Erode to Appakudal Sakthi Nagar (Sugar Factory) which is of a distance of 22 miles and 4 furlongs. This has to be classified as short route for which the new entrants will be given preference. The Regional Transport Authority, Coimbatore by his proceedings, dated 27th April, 1971 preferred M|s. Taxi Drivers Bus Service, because of their co-operative nature of enterprise. Aggrieved against this order, R. Govindarajulu and Mahalakshmi Transports, the respondent in both these revisions and the revision-petitioner in C.R.P. No. 3098 of 1978, respectively, preferred appeals. They came to be numbered as Appeal Nos. 601 and 635 of 1971. The Tribunal after elaborate consideration ultimately concluded that it was the respondent, who was best suited for the grant and therefore it set aside the grant in favour of M|s. Taxi Drivers Bus Service. I should at this stage note as to how M|s. Taxi Drivers Bus Service came to be altered with regard to its status. After the grant by the Regional Transport Authority in favour of M|s. Taxi Drivers Bus Service, it was transferred in favour of one of its partners Basheer Ahmad. Against the order of the Tribunal granting the permit in favour of Mahalakshmi Transports, Taxi Drivers- Bus Service, Erode v. Mahalakshmi Transports, Erode1, was preferred by M/s. Taxi Drivers- Bus Service.. Likewise, R. Govindarajulu v. M/s. Taxi Drivers- Bus Service, Erode and another2, was filed by R. Govindarajulu. Both of them were heard by Rama-prasada Rao, J., as he then was, and then the matters were remitted. After the matters were remitted, the transfer was made in favour of Basheer Ahmad. In I.A. No. 963 of 1978, Basheer Ahmad sought the permission of the Tribunal to continue the appeal and it was only during that hearing the permit came to be granted in favour of Govindarajulu, respondent in both these revisions. C.R.P. No. 2796 of 1978 is directed against the grant by Basheer Ahmad, while C.R.P. No. 3098 of 1978, is by Mahalakshmi Transports assailing the, same grant. Inasmuch as Basheer Ahmad had joined M|s. Taxi Drivers- Bus Service, C.M.P. No. 12836 of 1981 has been taken out to implead him as revision-petitioner in the place of M|s. Taxi Drivers- Bus Service. I do not think there is any serious objection for the petitioner being impleaded and accordingly C.M.P. No. 12836 of 1981 is allowed.

(3.) IT is not correct to say that the Tribunal failed to consider the conviction of overload. IT had considered it with reference to the ruling of this Court in G. Saraswathi v. K. Jagannathan and others2 and ultimately came to the conclusion that the solitary instance of the conductor being punished would not detract from the merit relating to the performance of transport operation. The next point that is made by the learned counsel for the respondent is that the rights of the parties will have to be decided on the dale of the hearing of the Regional Transport Authority, viz., 27th April, 1979, and the fact that the rules came to be changed will be of no consequence.