K. ABDUL AZEEZ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The original petition is filed to quash Ext. P6 judgment of the first respondent. The petitioner applied, in respect of his vehicle KLM 9162, for a regular variation and after complying with the provision of S.57 sub-s.2, 3, 4 and 5, a variation has been given to the petitioner by Ext. P2. The decision is in the following terms:

(2.) Regarding the locus standi of the 4th respondent to file the revision petition, it is stated that he is an existing operator who has a common sector with the petitioner's service. Therefore, it is held that he has locus standi to file the revision petition. In that view of the matter, he set aside the variation granted and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. He also observed that the application for regular variation has to be considered according to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles, Act, 1988. The petitioner was operating from Kozhikode to Palamadu and he sought variation by way of extension from Edakkara - Poovathipoyil curtailing the portion from Edakkara to Palamadu. The 4th respondent was operating from Kozhikode to Vazhikadavu. In short putting in algebraical term, petitioner was operating from A to B and he wanted extension from B to C which was granted. Since the petitioner was operating between A to B extension from B to C by way of variation is not possible under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (New Act). Under S.80 Sub-s.(3) of the Act, 1988 by the variation termini shall not be altered. Therefore, the direction to consider the petitioner's application for variation in the light of the new Act will become useless exercise of jurisdiction as the Regional Transport Authority can only refuse the variation if it is to be considered under the new Act. The 4th respondent therefore filed a writ petition before this Court as O. P. No. 3454 of 1990 in which the petitioner was also made a party, but the same was dismissed at the admission stage itself with the direction to the Regional Transport Authority to expedite consideration and pass appropriate order within four weeks from that day. That judgment was pronounced on 6th April 1990. But as the petitioner obtained a stay of further proceedings pursuant to the remand order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, the Regional Transport Authority could not take any further steps pursuant to the judgment of this Court.

(3.) Counsel on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the judgment Ext. P6 is vitiated. Firstly, it is stated that a revision itself is not maintainable under the old Act. Secondly, it is submitted that even if the revision is maintainable under the old Act, the direction to be heard under the new Act is illegal and not justified. There are other sub points also raised, viz. that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal ought not have heard the revision petitioner and further the State Transport Appellate Tribunal ought not have remanded the matter. It is also submitted that the petitioner has a vested right, and therefore, the application for variation must have been directed to be disposed of under the old Act.