Interpretation of S.57(8) of the Motor Vehicles Act and the application's nature in relation to the grant of new permits or variation of conditions.

1. This is an application under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, for issue of a writ of certiorari or such appropriate writ, order or direction to the 1st respondent, the Road Traffic Board, Kottayam in order to call up the records and proceedings of their order No K. 49/PT/57 dated 29-7-57 and to quash the said order as ultra vires, illegal, ineffective and void.

2. The petitioner's case is that he is a bus-owner operating a service of two buses on the route Kottayam-Iyerkunnam about 10 miles distance and that he is also operating a service with one bus on the route Kottayam-Thiruvarpu about 5 miles distance. On 29-7-57, the Road Traffic Board, Kottayam, according to the petitioner, sanctioned the 2nd respondent's prayer by extending the permits as prayed for by them on the two routes namely, Kottayam-Thiiuvarpu and Kanjikuzhi-Thiruvathuckal. The petitioner alleges that this has been done by the Road Traffic Board without complying with the statutory provisions and he also alleges that he has been adversely affected by the grant of the extended permits in favour of the 2nd respondent.

3. According to the 2nd respondent, the Swaraj Motors (Private) Ltd.. Kottayam, they had already obtained permits for running transport buses on the Kottayam Town Roads in 1946 and they were so operating on the Kottayam Town Roads from the date of the issue of the permits and that all these permits have been extended up to 26-6-1959. According to them, from 1949 in view of the one way traffic introduced on the M. C. Road, their bus operating between Kottayam District Court-Kodimatha was diverted and was running between Kanjikuzhi and Thiruvathuckal to the knowledge of the Transport authorities. They further alleged that after the construction of the Illickal bridge, their bus operating between Kottayam and Thazhathangadi (Illickal bridge) was also proceeding up to Thiruvarpu to the knowledge of the authorities. They further state that they made an application in or about 8-2-1957 to the Road Traffic Board for regularising certain of their services in the Kottayam Town Roads and for re-fixation of starting and terminal points within the Kottayam Town Road and accordingly, the Road Traffic Board, by its order dated 29-7-57 granted the said request. Their application was not in any way, an application for variation of any of the conditions of the permit and they also contend that the applicants herein have no right to challenge those proceedings.

4. So far as this application is concerned, we are only concerned with that portion of the order of the Road Traffic Board which relates to the Kottayam-Thiruvarpu and Kanjikuzhi-Thiruvathuckal routes.

5. It is not necessary to consider whether the petitioners are persons aggrieved by the order sought to be quashed, because I am otherwise satisfied that there is no substance in this application.

6. There is no dispute that as early as 27-6-1946 four permits were granted in favour of the 2nd respondent for running their buses on Kottayam Town Roads and permits were issued fixing the starting point and termini in those roads. That such permits for the "Kottayam Town Roads" were granted is clear from enclosures 1, 2, 3 and 4 filed along with the counter-affidavit of the 2nd respondent. This fact also is clear from Exts. P2 and P3 as also the order which is now sought to be quashed. In fact even the petitioner himself admits in his affidavit filed in support of his application that the 2nd respondent was granted permits for running buses in the Kottayam Town Roads as early as 1946.

7. It may also be stated at this stage that so far as Kottayam-Thiruvarpu route is concerned, the petitioner himself admits in Para.4 of his reply affidavit that he got the formal permit only on 30-8-57 but that it has been granted to him one month earlier by order of the 1st respondent. Taking this statement, it follows that even apart from any other consideration, his interest in this route is only at the most from 30-7