AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Antony Dominic, J.—Petitioner was granted a regular permit on the route Cherthala-Kaloor Via., Chellanam, Thoppumpadi and M.G.Road. The regular permit was granted on 01.07.1996 and was valid up to 30.06.2006. On expiry of the permit, petitioner applied for renewal which was granted by Ext.P2 order of the RTA, limiting the route up to Thoppumpadi. An appeal was filed to the Tribunal which was disposed of by remanding the matter by Ext.P3 order and permitting the petitioner to suggest modification to avoid overlapping the notified route. It is stated that on remand the petitioner suggested a modification via Kundannoor, Vyttila and Kadavanthara and even that was rejected by the RTA by Ext.P4 order again on the ground of overlapping.
This order of the RTA was challenged before the Tribunal and the matter was again remanded by Ext.P5 order. The RTA again reconsidered and rejected the petitioner''s application on the ground that the route suggested by the petitioner cannot be allowed as per the draft notification issued on 09.05.07. The matter was carried in appeal by Ext.P7 and Ext.P8 is the counter filed by the KSRTC. The Tribunal considered the matter and rejected the appeal by Ext.P9. Reasoning of the Tribunal is that in view of the notification dt.09.05.07 a fresh permit or renewal affecting supplementation scheme cannot be granted. It is challenging Exts.P6 and P9 and seeking consequential reliefs, this writ petition is filed.
Counsel for the petitioner mainly submits that the application for renewal initially made was allowed by the RTA by Ext.P7 order, which is much prior to the notification dated 09.05.2007 and therefore the permit having been granted as on that date, the notification has no relevance for deciding his application. The other contention that is raised by the petitioner is that giving the benefit of Clause 4 of the notification dated 09.05.2007, permits on the original route and also the modified route, have been renewed by the RTA. He is relying on Exts.P11 to P14 in support of this contention and submits that he alone is being discriminated in this respect. The plea of discrimination is also sought to be supported by relying on the judgment reported in Vishundas Hundumal and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, and Allied Transport Company and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, .
I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and the Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent.
On considering the submissions made by the parties, I am satisfied that the matter needs to be reconsidered by the RTA itself. The RTA will have to consider whether the notification itself is of any relevance to the petitioner''s application, since the application was submitted long before the notification was issued and has been allowed by the RTA prior to the issue of the notification itself. But then grant was only partial in the sense that it was limited up to Thoppumpady. Since I am leaving it to the RTA to decide the issue, I refrain from examining this contention any further.
Secondly, the petitioner is well founded in relying on Exts.P11 to P14, renewal of permits granted through the route applied for by the petitioner and also through the modified route suggested by the petitioner. This contention of the petitioner also will have to be considered in the light of the judgments referred above.
Therefore, quashing Exts.P6 and P9, I direct that the 1st respondent shall reconsider the application made by the petitioner for renewal of permit as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment.