NANDAKUMAR Vs. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P6 judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT for short) directing him to submit a fresh application for the grant of a permit. The contention of the petitioner is that he had filed an affidavit before the STAT requesting that a permit be granted on his application, curtailing the route with respect to which he had applied for permit.

(2.) The petitioner had submitted an application for the issue of a regular permit to operate on the route, North Parur-Thevara Junction via Cherai, Narakkal, Kalamukku, Gosri Bridges, Ernakulam High Court Junction, Menaka, Boat Jetty and Pallimukku in respect of his stage carriage No: KL-07/AN 567. The application was rejected on the ground that for a distance of 6 km, the route was overlapping the notified route, Trivandrum-Kannur, approved by notification No: 42/09/Trans dated 14/7/09. The petitioner challenged the rejection of his application for regular permit before the STAT in MVAA No: 538/2009. The petitioner filed an affidavit dated 12/3/2010 before the STAT seeking to limit his services up to Ernakulam High Court junction, thus avoiding the objectionable overlapping. In the light of the affidavit filed by the petitioner, the STAT found that the petitioner's request should be considered afresh. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed reserving the right of the petitioner to file a fresh application avoiding the objectionable overlapping. Such a modified application if made, was directed to be considered by the RTA, Ernakulam.

(3.) According to the counsel for the petitioner, the STAT erred in directing the petitioner to make a fresh application. The proper course was for the STAT to have remanded the entire matter in view of the affidavit filed by the petitioner. My attention is drawn to Section 72(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short) to contend that the Regional Transport Authority (RTA) is sufficiently empowered to grant the permit with such modifications as it deems fit. The only restriction on the above power is that such permit shall not be granted in respect of a route or area that is not specified in the application.