ORDER: This is an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution to call for the records relating to order No. 74/Genl/57 dated 18-10-1957 passed by the first respondent, the Central Road Traffic Board, Trivandrum and quash the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order. The order sought to be quashed is marked as Ex. B in these proceedings.

2 According to the petitioner, he holds a permit for the stage carriage KLQ 1484 (TCQ 1081) running on the Kottayathukadavu - Kallada route via Kundara. The second respondent holds a permit for stage carriage TCQ 47 and 2149 running on the Kottayathukadavu - Kundara route, the terminal point for which has been fixed at Kundara by the Road Traffic Board as C. P. Junction, Kundara. The order fixing the said C. P. Junction as the terminal point is the one dated 30-3-1957 and marked as Ex. A.

3Against the order of the Road Traffic Board fixing the terminal point, the second respondent filed a levision before the first respondent, the Central Road Traffic Board, which by its order dated 18-10-1957, Ex. B set aside the order of the Road Traffic Board and fixed the terminal point of the route for the second respondents buses at Armurikkada, a place nearly 2 miles east of C. P. Junction, Kundara. The petitioner contends that the order, Ex. B of the first respondent is illegal, ultra vires and passed without jurisdiction.

The order is also challenged as being mala fide and that under the guise of fixing a terminal point, the second respondent has been allowed to run his buses on a route without complying with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is also contended that the first respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain the revision against the order of the Road Traffic Board. The basis of this contention, according to the applicant, is that the constitution of the first respondent Board is contrary to the provisions of S. 44 of the Act.

The Chairman and Sri N. R. Srinivasa Iyer, Deputy Inspector-General of Police, are disqualified to be members of the Board, since both of them are members of the State Transport Advisory Board which deals with finances and other matters of the State Transport undertaking. On all these grounds the applicant prays for an order to call for the records and quash the order of the first respondent Ex. B.

4The second respondent has filed a counter-affidavit challenging the various allegations of the petitioner. It is stated that he was given two permits for the two buses for operating between Kottayathukadavu and Kundara first in 1951 and subsequently renewed in 1954. Ever since 1951, he has been operating the two services between Kottayathukadavu and Arumurikada in Kundara without the objection of anybody. The petitioner appears to have moved the Regional Transport Authority on 24-1-1957 for refixing the terminal points of the second respondents buses.

The Regional Transport Authority by its order dated 30-3-1957 passed an improper and illegal order placing certain restrictions on the operation of the two buses and contrary to the terms of the permits originally granted. Therefore, the order of the Regional Transport Authority was challenged in revision before the State Transport Authority (The original Central Road Traffic Board). The latter set aside the illegal order of the Road Traffic Board and fixed the terminii for the two buses as Kottayathukadavu - Arumurikada. That order, Ex. B is one passed with jurisdiction and also a legal and proper order.

It is also stated that the petitioner himself has applied to the Regional Transport Authority, Quilon for varying his permits so as to enable his bus to proceed from Pallimukku to Arumurikada and back again to Pallimukku and then to Kallada. I am not really concerned in these proceedings with this application stated to have been filed by the petitioner. The statement that the distance beween C. P. Junction and Arumurikada is about 2 miles is denied and it is stated that the d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document