Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. This original petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to quash Ext. P13 judgment of the second respondent. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam. Petitioner holds a regular permit for the route Puduponnani-Guruvayur in respect of vehicle KRR 1031. Edappal is said to he an important place two kilometres away from the route. Petitioner gave Ext. PI application for variation of the route so as to touch Edappal that is, two single trips on the original route and four single trips on the varied routes under Section 37(8) Motor Vehicles Act (for short "the Act') and Rule 212, Motor Vehicles Rules, (for short 'the Rules'). He also applied for a temporary permit on the varied routes. First respondent, R. T. A., Malappuram, took up both the applications and directed the application for variation of the route to be notified under Section 57(3) of the Act and rejected the application for temporary permit. The matter was duly notified. It is said that no representations were received against the proposal. The R. T. A. in due course considered the application but rejected it under Ext. P3 order. Petitioner herein filed revision petition No. 163/1983 before respondent 2 who allowed the same and remanded the matter for fresh consideration under Ext. P4 judgment. When the R. T. A. met again to reconsider the same, petitioner's application was opposed by respondent 3 but variation was granted under Ext. P5 order. Timings were also revised under Ext. P6. Third respondent filed a revision petition challenging Ext. P5 order before respondent 2. Petitioner herein opposed the revision petition on the ground of the same being barred by limitation and also on merits. The Tribunal went into both the questions and allowed the revision and remanded the matter once again for fresh consideration. On the question of limitation, the Tribunal observed that the revision petition was not filed within 30 days of the date of the order but this technicality should not stand in the way of substantial justice being rendered by the Tribunal and since the order of the RTA was manifestly illegal, it has to be interfered with.