Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. In accordance with the direction of the R.T.A., Kottayam, the petitioner is stated to have produced the necessary records of his vehicle, K.L.K. 3287--1938 Model Fargo Bus--and the necessary permit was issued on 25-4-1959. Along with the said permit, the Authority also fixed tentative timings, for the running by the petitioner of his bus. But as a part of the route about three miles Thiruvella to Idinjilam lay in the Alleppey District, the petitioner was also required to take the endorsement of the Alleppey Authority.

6. It is further stated by the petitioner that the R.T.A., Kottayam, at the instigation of some of the rival operators, prohibited the petitioner from operating the bus in the Alleppey District route, Thiruvella-Idinjilam. But this order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in O. P. 607 of 1959 and it is stated that this Court, by its order dated 5-5-1959, stayed the operation of the order of the R.T.A., Kottayam, regarding the restriction, imposed.

7. It is further alleged that the second respondent herein, who was never in the picture at all when the question of the grant of permit in favour of the petitioner was being considered by the Authority, is stated to have fifed a revision before the first respondent, the State Transport Authority, Trivandrum, against the finding of the timings of the petitioner's bus by the K.T.A. The first respondent, after entertaining that revision, has also passed an order on 2-5-1959, namely, Ex. P-1, without notice to the petitioner. By virtue of that order the State Transport Authority has stayed the operation of the permit issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam, in favour of the petitioner herein for the Thiruvella-Periyar route till the Regional Transport Authority, Alleppey, countersigns the said permit. An attempt to have this order vacaled by the petitioner proved of no avail.

11. The second respondent has also filed a counter-affidavit contesting the allegations contained in the petitioner's affidavit. But the second respondent accepts the grant of a permit by the R.T.A., Kottayam, in favour of the petitioner on 25-4-1959, but it is only a conditional grant dependent upon the endorsement by the R.T.A., Alleppey, The petitioner has no right to run the service before getting the endorsement from the Alleppey Officer. The petitioner has made an application to the R.T.A., Alleppey, on 29-4-1959 for making the, necessary endorsement on his permit. The second respondent has entered appearance before that officer and is contending that the second respondent also should be heard before the R.T.A., Alleppey passes final orders and the matter is pending before the R.T.A., Alleppey.

12. The second respondent further states that she is aggrieved by the order of the R.T.A., Kottayam, fixing the timings for the petitioner's bus and therefore she has filed a revision before the State Transport Authority, Trivandrum, challenging the legality of the grant of the permit to the petitioner. The permit does not become valid till St is countersigned by the R.T.A., Alleppey.

13. It is further stated by the second respondent that her revision to the first respondent was perfectly competent and the order Ex. P-1 has been passed by the first respondent and it is an order which it has ample jurisdiction to pass. It is again stated that the second respondent is entitled to take any objection before the R.T.A., Alleppey by virtue of the provisions in Section 63, Clause (iii) of the Act. It is finally stated that the timings issued to the petitioner, though tentative, are highly prejudicial to her interests. The petitioner has got other rights provided under the Act and he should have pursued the same before coming to this Court under Article 226. The order, Ex. P-1, is supported in its entirety by the second respondent,