C KUNHIKUTTY Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM
LAWS(KER)-1963-11-5
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on November 15,1963

C.KUNHIKUTTY Appellant
VERSUS
STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

ANNAMALAIS BUS TRANSPORT (PT.) LTD. V. KUNHIPPALU [REFERRED TO]
MERCHANDISE TRANSPORT LTD. V. BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

R K V MOTORS AND TIMBERS P LTD VS. M V BALACHANDRA KURUP [LAWS(KER)-1975-3-17] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)BY an order passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Kozhikode, at its meeting held on 30-10-1961, a permit was issued to the petitioner who was applicant No. 2 on the route Murad-Azhiyur Sub Registry Office, via Badagara. The seventh applicant before the Regional Transport Authority is the second respondent to this writ application. The Regional Transport Authority allotted the highest marks among the applicants to applicant No. 7, but denied him a permit on the ground that
"applicant No. 7 the Punchiri Motor Service has as many as 9 routes overlapping portions along this route and hence it is considered that in the interest of maintaining healthy competition his claims to this route should be rejected. "

(2.)APPEALS were taken by the unsuccessful applicants before the State Transport appellate Tribunal, the first respondent herein, and the State Transport Appellate tribunal by order produced along with this writ application, Ext. P-3, cancelled the issue of the permit to the petitioner and granted the permit to the second respondent. It is this order Ext. P-3, that is challenged in this writ application.
(3.)VARIOUS contentions were raised by counsel on behalf of the petitioner. Firstly it is submitted that G. O. No. 1298 and the principles laid down therein have been relied on by the Regional Transport Authority and the State Transport Appellate tribunal and that this should not have been done. Support for this proposition was sought to be gained from the observations in a Judgment of this Court in Writ appeal No. 67 of 1962. That Judgment in Paragraph 2 commented on the cancellation of the above G. O. and the direction given by the Government in their d. O. letter dated 23-1-1959 to the District Collectors Kozhikode, Palghat and Cannanore, who are ex-officio Chairmen of the respective Regional Transport authorities. In the letter dated 23-1-1959 it is said:
"that the principles laid down In G. O. (ME) No. 1298 dated 28th April 1956 of the Madras Government which has already been cancelled may as far as possible be followed in deciding whether a stage carriage permit should be granted or refused. "
Regarding this procedure, this Court observed:
"motor Vehicles Act is in operation throughout the State; and applications for stage carriage permits under it are being disposed of in every district of the State. The relevance and necessity of a uniform set of rules in the matter are alike throughout the State. It may be that, in the light of er- perience gained and rulings rendered, the Madras G. O. may be found to require amendment in certain respects. The government of a welfare State is bound to do such things promptly and issue revised rules for the guidance of the authorities throughout the state. Cancelling the rules and requesting some only of the statutory authorities in the State to follow the principles therein cannot be a matter of satisfaction to any Government. We hope that the Government will take particular notice of the above facts and do the needful soon. "
I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to submit that the principles underlying the G. O, should not have been followed on the facts of this case. It is, no doubt, desirable, as has been mentioned by the Division Bench Ruling in the Judgment, the relevant part of which I have extracted above, that a uniform principle should be applied. But the petitioner had not challenged the application of the principles contained in that G. O. It is not as though the principles stated therein are irrelevant or extraneous to the questions arising for determination. It is stated in paragraph 4 of Ext. P-3:.
"it was not contended before me by any of the appellants that the R. T. A. acted without jurisdiction or was wrong to have followed the principles of the said G. O. "

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.