BALAKRISHNA TRANSPORT Vs. R T A MALAPPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First respondent, the Regional Transport Authority, invited applications for introduction of a stage carriage service on the route Malappuram Guruvayoor at its meeting held on 20-2-1988. At that meeting the first respondent granted temporary permit for 20 days to third respondent Cooperative society in respect of their vehicle, K.R.M. 688 to operate on the route. In pursuance to the notification inviting applications, the petitioner and third respondent applied for the permit. The route has a length of 87.5 KMs. The petitioner is a fleet operator having full sector qualification. It has office and place of business as also a fully equipped work-shop at Guruvayoor on the route. The petitioner has experience for more than 40 years in the business. The petitioner offered a 1987 model vehicle with registration No. K. E. R.781. According to the petitioner, third respondent society had lesser qualifications. It is only . a medium operator with less than 2 years experience in the business. It has office at Malappuram. On account of the lesser qualification of third respondent, the petitioner contended that the permit should be granted to him. First respondent at its meeting held on 9-11-1988 granted the permit to third respondent preferring it on account of it being a Cooperative society. That grant evidenced by Ext. P3 was challenged by the petitioner before 4th respondent, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal by filing M.V.A.A. No. 752/88. The Tribunal by Ext. P5 judgment dated 27-2-1989 dismissed the appeal. Hence this Original Petition.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner challenges Ext. P5 judgment of the Tribunal on the ground that the preference shown to third respondent on account of it being a Cooperative society is not tenable and that the third respondent should have been screened since it failed to produce income tax clearance certificate along with its application for the permit.

(3.) Learned Government Pleader appeared on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. Smt. Seemanthini appeared on behalf of third respondent society. They were also heard.