ORDER
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.
1. Petitioner submitted an application for regular permit on 3-1-1998 on the route Chavara-Kottiyan, in the vacancy which arose, according to petitioner, due to surrender of a regular permit of stage carriage KLC1/G 2277. According to petitioner, she proposed timings as per Section 70(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Since there was inordinate delay in consideration of the application of the petitioner, she filed O.P. No. 23362 of 1998 which was disposed of by this Court directing the Regional Transport Authority, Kollam to consider the application of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law. According to petitioner, when the petitioner filed O.P. No. 23362 of 1998 there was no other application pending consideration. Judgment of this Court was produced before the Regional Transport Authority. Subsequently, two more applications dated respectively dated 10-12-1998 and 15-12-1988 were preferred on the same route. Secretary Regional Transport Authority placed all those applications for consideration before the Regional Transport Authority in its meeting held on 15-1-1999. Second respondent is the person who submitted her application on 15-12-1998. Meeting which was scheduled to be held on 15-1-1999 was adjourned to 6-2-1999. In the meantime, according to petitioner second respondent approached this Court and filed O.P. No. 2112 of 1999, which was disposed of by this Court directing the Regional Transport Authority to consider the relative merits of the applications and dispose of the same. According to petitioner, this writ petition was moved after the disposal of the earlier writ petition. Counsel submitted that in view of the direction given by this Court, Regional Transport Authority strictly consider the applications on the basis of priority and not an comparative merits. In other words, counsel submitted that there are two contradictory judgment. According to counsel, Regional Transport Authority is bound to consider the application strictly on basis of priority and there is no consideration of applications on comparative merits. Counsel submitted that new Motor Vehicles Act has liberalised the grant of permits and therefore the principle of first come first serve should apply in the matter of consideration of applications for regular permit.
2. I heard counsel for the second respondent also. Counsel for the second respondent, who was the petitioner in O.P. No. 2112 of 1999, maintained the stand that when more applications are received 6y the Regional Transport Authority, it is open to the Regional Transport Authority to consider the comparative merits.
3. Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act says that an application for a permit of any kind may be made at any time, and a Regional Transport Authority shall not ordinarily refuse to grant an application for permit of any kind made at any time under the Act. There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act or in the Rules that applications be considered strictly on the basis of priority or that the applications should be considered on comparative merits. Priority is normally directed to maintain so as to see that the authority shall not act arbitrarily by not considering an application submitted first. Regional Transport Authorities are quasi-judicial authorities, under the Act. There is an element of discretion in the said authorities to grant or not to grant permit. It is not as if the moment an application is submitted, the Regional Transport Authority should grant the permit. Evidently Regional Transport Authority has to consider various aspects. Section 80(2) of the Act says that a Regional Transport Authority shall not ordinarily refuse to grant an application for permit of any kind made at any time under the Act. That does not mean that Regional Transport Authority is bound to grant the permit. As a quasi-judicial authority, it can always look into various aspects before granting the permit. Suppose a route is saturated, or for any other relevant reason for not granting the permit, it can refuse the permit. When Regional Transport Authority receives large number of applications, it is always open to the authority to assess the comparative merits, if the authority does not propose to grant permit for all the applicants. In a case where the Regional Transport Authority decides to grant few permits on the same route, and when large number of applications are received by it, it is open to the authority to look into the comparative merits and make best judgment assessment of its own for granting the permit. In a given case, when an applicant who submitted application first offers old model vehicle, and the applicant who submitted application later, offers a later model vehicle, it is always open to the authority to grant permit to the interest model vehicle, which is more beneficial to the travelling public. Therefore the contention of counsel for the petitioner that even though a person who submitted his application later has got superior qualities is not a ground for not considering the earlier application and granting the same is not correct. In the said circumstances, I am of the view that Regional Transport Authority, being a quasi-judicial authority, is always justified in assessing the comparative merits of all the applications when they come up for consideration. I am of the view that the crucial time is the time when all the application come up for consideration, in case Regional Transport Authority decides to grant only a few permits.
In the said circumstances I am of the view that petitioner is not justified in contending that comparative merits cannot be assessed by the Regional Transport Authority. Writ petition therefore lacks merits and the same is dismissed.