IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 27110 of 2007(B)
1. V.MITHRADAS,PROPRIETOR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE REGIONAL TRASPORT AUTHORITY,
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY,
3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.RAVINDRAN
For Respondent :SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :01/10/2007
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C) No. 27110 OF 2007
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 1st October, 2007
J U D G M E N T
The prayers in this writ petition are to quash
Ext.P6 and to direct the 2nd respondent to not to issue
any temporary permit until a decision is taken by the
1st respondent.
2. There was a default vacancy in Nettayam –
Kulathara, a city route in Thiruvananthapuram while the
petitioner was operating on a temporary permit in that
default vacancy, there were other applicants for this
route. In Ext.P1 judgment, this court directed to
consider and pass orders on all applications received
and grant permit to the applicant who is found to be
the most meritorious one. Accordingly, applications
were considered and eventually temporary permit was
granted to the 3rd respondent. This was challenged
before the Tribunal and in Ext.P2 judgment, the
Tribunal allowed the appeal and directed that all
applications be considered by the 1st respondent
excluding the one submitted by the 3rd respondent.
Ext.P2 judgment was challenged in Writ Petition (Civil)
No.15009 of 2007 and connected cases and the cases were
disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment directing the 1st
respondent to consider all fresh applications in
accordance with law. In pursuance to Ext.P3, among the
applicants, the 2nd respondent chose the 3rd respondent
W.P.(C) No. 27110 OF 2007 2
and Ext.P6 is the temporary permit issued for the
period from 24.08.2007 to 12.09.2007. It is
challenging Ext.P6 that this writ petition has been
filed.
3. 3rd respondent would submit that the writ
petition has become infructuous since the period of
Ext.P6 Temporary Permit has expired on 12.09.2007 and a
further temporary permit (Ext.R3(1)) valid to till
02.10.2007 was issued. It is also stated that in
pursuance to Ext.P3 judgment of this Court, the 1st
respondent has considered all applications in its
meeting held on 19.09.2007 and that orders are awaited.
It is also contended that despite the contention of the
petitioner that the 3rd respondent is ineligible to be
issued temporary permit, while disposing of the cases
by Ext.P3 judgments, there was no direction to exclude
the application of the 3rd respondent and hence the 3rd
respondent is entitled to be issued the Temporary
Permit.
4. The Learned Counsel for the writ petitioner
raised mainly three contentions. According to him, in
terms of provisions of the Act and the Rules, the
respondents are bound to assess the comparative merit
of the applicants before granting permit and that such
an assessment of merit has not been done in this case
before issuing the Temporary Permit. It is also
contended that by Ext.P3 judgment, while disposing of
the writ petitions filed against Ext.P2, this court had
directed the 1st respondent to consider the applications
and that inspite of it, without placing the matter
W.P.(C) No. 27110 OF 2007 3
before the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent granted
permit which is unauthorized. He also argued that
Ext.P6 temporary permit has been granted to do
substitute service and that such a permit can be
granted only in circumstances to which Rule 182 of the
Kerala Rules apply. These contentions are refuted by
the counsel for the 3rd respondent.
5. I have considered the submissions made, it is
true that Ext.P6 does not show that there has been an
assessment of comparative merits of the applicants.
This, in my view, should have been done. In Ext.P3
judgment, this court had directed that all applications
received shall be considered by the RTA
Thiruvananthapuram, the 1st respondent in that case.
Therefore, the RTA itself should have considered the
applications and even if the Secretary is competent by
delegation that was irrelevant in so far as this case
is concerned. From Ext.P6 it is obvious that Temporary
Permit has been issued by the Secretary, the 2nd
respondent herein. On the other hand he should have
placed the matter for the consideration of the 1st
respondent which has not been done. Ext.P6 also shows
that the 3rd respondent has been permitted to do
substitute service in place of KL 01/D 9953.
Substitute service is permissible only in terms of Rule
182 of the Kerala Rules and the facts show that the
said rule is inapplicable. If that be so, a temporary
permit, could not have ben granted to do substitute
service. Thus, I find force in the submissions made by
the learned counsel for the writ petition.
W.P.(C) No. 27110 OF 2007 4
6. Be that as it may, it is evident from Ext.P6
itself that the period of this permit has expired on
12.09.2007 and the 3rd respondent has been granted
temporary permits for subsequent periods as well. In
the meantime, the RTA has also concluded hearing on
19.09.2007. If that be so, there is no point in
quashing Ext.P6, at this distance of time. Petitioner
has also not sought any prayer to quash Ext.R3(a) or
subsequent temporary permit, if any, granted to the 3rd
respondent.
In these circumstances I dispose of the writ
petition directing that, if any temporary permit is
hereafter granted for the route Nettayam – Kulathara
the same shall be done considering the relative merits
of the applicants and that too only by the 1st
respondent and in any event not by the 2nd respondent.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
pr/jan.