The RTA is still exercising quasi-judicial functions while granting permits and has to consider the factors mentioned in S.71, 72, and 80(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The High Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus directing the RTA to issue a permit but can only direct the RTA to exercise its powers in accordance with the provisions of law.

M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J.

1. This Writ Appeal is preferred by Sri. T. Mohammed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in O. P. No. 5884 of 1992 filed by the fourth respondent writ petitioner, Sri. K. Marakkar.

2. In the Writ Petition, the fourth respondent writ petitioner has stated that he submitted application for grant of a regular permit for operating on the route Kozhikode - Kalikavu (via) Medical College, Karanthur, Kunuamangalam, Mukkam, Areacode, Edavanna, Tiruvali. It is an inter district route falling within the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority Malappuram and Kozhikode, major portion of which falling within the jurisdiction of the former. The fourth respondent further has stated that the Regional Transport Authority, Kozhikode in its meeting held on 4-10-1991 has granted concurrence for introduction of the service. After other statutory formalities were completed, the application of the writ petitioner was placed before the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority on 27-11-1991 and the petitioner appeared before the authority and explained the need for granting a permit At the time of consideration of the application, the writ petitioner was not in possession of any vehicle. He however filed an affidavit before the Regional Transport Authority undertaking that he would produce a 1980 or a later model vehicle within the time contemplated under R.159(2) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, as per Ext. P2. The grievance of the writ petitioner was that inspite of that the Regional Transport Authority had deferred the issue of permit on the ground that the petitioner has not filed an affidavit undertaking that the vehicle will be produced within 30 days, vide Ext. P3. In that order the Regional Transport Authority stated as follows:

"..... The applicant has not produced a ready vehicle or furnished a proper affidavit in the required stamp paper undertaking production of the vehicle within 30 days. Hence the application is deferred".

The said order also reproduced the timings proposed by the writ petitioner for the proposed vehicle. Thereafter, the petitioner states that he procured a vehicle KEF 7990, a 1984 model vehicle to operate on the above route, Contending that for five months there was no meeting of the Regional Transport Authority, and five families are depending upon the vehicle, and the petitioner has to pay monthly instalments to the financing company, the petitioner approached this Court for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Secretary, RTA (first respondent in the Writ Petition) to issue a regular permit to the writ petitioner for the above said route as per the timings proposed by the petitioner, which are extracted in Ext. P3, in respect of stage carriage KEF 7990. The writ petitioner also sought a further direction to the Secretary, RTA to issue a regular permit to operate on the above route on the basis of the timings which was referred to in Ext. P3 order. This Writ Petition was filed on 7-5-1992, and came up for admission on the 8th. The learned Single Judge after observing that the Govt. Pleader took notice on behalf of the respondents, passed an order as follows:

"The Ist respondent is directed to Issue a regular permit to the petitioner to operate on the route Kozhikode - Kalikavu (via) Medical College, Karanthur, Kannamgalam, Mukkam, Areacode, Edavanna, Tiruvali, on the basis of the timings shown in Ext. P3 in respect of stage carriage KEF 7990 within 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

O. P. is disposed of with the above direction." Thereafter the appellant Sri. T Mohammed, filed the present appeal, and sought leave of this Court by filing a CMP. His contention was that the timings awarded to the writ petitioner without notice to the appellant would affect the running of his bus on the same route. On the basis, we granted leave in the CMP, and had the appeal registered.

3. The appellant, in his memorandum of appeal, stated that he is c