S.P. Chaly, J.

1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to quash Ext. P6 permit issued by the 1st respondent to the 4th respondent invoking Rule 130 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, by circulation of papers to the members of the Regional Transport Authority, and other related reliefs. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

2. The 1st petitioner is an association of stage carriage operators, and the District Unit of Kerala State Private Bus Operators' Federation. The 2nd petitioner is a stage carriage operator and member of the 1st petitioner association, holding a regular permit in respect of vehicle bearing No. KL-10/Q 427. The 4th respondent applied for a regular permit to conduct service on the route Kodungallur-Maniyamkavu, according to the petitioners, a route substantially overlapping the route traversed by the 2nd petitioner's stage carriage. Alleging that the said application is not being considered by the 1st respondent, the 4th respondent filed W.P.(C) No. 26268 of 2016 before this Court, and this Court directed the RTA to consider and dispose of the application in the next meeting scheduled to be held on 30.08.2016. According to the petitioners, Ext. P1 judgment was not produced before the RTA even though the meeting originally scheduled to be held on 30.08.2016 was adjourned and held one month later i.e. on 26.09.2016, evident from Ext. P2 agenda of the meeting.

3. It was on 20.01.2017, i.e. more than three months after Ext. P1 judgment, 4th respondent procured a stage carriage bearing registration No. KL-07/AM 1020, a 2003 model vehicle which cannot be operated beyond March, 2018, evident from Ext. P3. On 05.04.2017, there was another meeting of the RTA held at Thrissur. Even though more than 200 matters are boarded up for consideration in the said meeting, the 4th respondent's application for regular permit was not one among them, evident from Ext. P4.

4. Nevertheless, on 02.05.2017, almost one month after the meeting of the RTA held on 05.04.2017, a notice was issued by the 2nd respondent, scheduling a timing conference on 17.05.2017 for the purpose of settling the timings for the regular permit granted to the 4th respondent on the route proposed by him, evident from Ext. P5. It is also submitted that, Ext. P5 notice revealed for the first time that a regular permit had been sanctioned to the 4th respondent, even without placing the same in a regular meeting of the RTA, even though such meetings had been held between 08.08.2016 and 03.05.2017, i.e. after the date of Ext. P1 judgment. Ext. P5 further revealed that the permit was granted by RTA by circulation of papers under Rule 130 of Rules, 1989. According to the petitioners, 4th respondent had managed to get the regular permit in a surreptitious manner behind the back of all interested/affected operators and en route operators objecting to the conduct of the timing conference on 17.05.2017, and the same was adjourned.

5. Immediately thereafter, petitioners applied for a copy of the decision of the RTA granting regular permit to the 4th respondent, which was issued on 29.05.2017, evident from Ext. P6. According to the petitioners, Ext. P6 suffers from various infirmities including not bearing a date. It is also stated that the permit has been granted by the RTA relying exclusively on the data furnished by a 'route enquiry officer', whose identity is also not revealed. It is further stated that, Ext. P6 overlaps the notified routes of the KSRTC and it is also stated that there is a 'virgin portion' with no stage carriage service. Therefore, according to the petitioners, interference is warranted to Ext. P6 order, since the same being arbitrary and illegal.

6. Fourth respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit, disputing the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioners. The maintainability of the writ petition itself is under challenge, contending that Ext. P6 is a revisable order un