The court affirmed the maintainability of the renewal application for a stage carriage permit despite prior rejections, emphasizing compliance with statutory directives and the authority's duty to reconsider.

JUDGMENT :

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.

1. Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P13 decision of the Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad, which declined her request for renewal of Ext.P2 stage carriage permit granted on 17.06.2011, in the curtailed route Palakkad-Pattambi.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows:-

The petitioner had submitted an application on 10.10.2005 for the grant of a regular stage carriage permit on the interregional (interdistrict) route Guruvayur-Palakkad in respect of her stage carriage bearing Registration No. KL-8-AJ-9550. Since the route traversed the districts of Thrissur and Palakkad, the application was submitted to the Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad, as a major portion of the proposed route lies within the Palakkad district. By an order dated 25.05.2006, the aforementioned application for regular permit was sanctioned subject to counter signature of RTA, Thrissur and thereafter, by the proceedings of the Secretary, RTA, Palakkad, dated 20.06.2006 regular permit valid for five years from 20.6.2006 to 19.06.2011 was issued to the petitioner, as seen from Ext.P1, subject to counter signature of RTA, Thrissur. Ext.P2 is a true copy of the regular permit valid till 19.06.2011 issued concerning the vehicle in question.

3. Upon the issuance of Ext.P2 permit on 20.06.2006, the operation of the stage carriage commenced on the route Pattambi - Palakkad on the strength of the time schedule approved in Ext.P1 proceedings as the operation of the stage carriage service on the strength of Ext.P2 was confined to Palakkad District alone since the permit was granted subject to the counter signature of RTA, Thrissur. The application for counter signature was rejected by RTA, Thrissur, as by then the approved scheme of nationalisation had come into force, whereby a portion of the route spanning 19 Kms lying within the jurisdiction of RTA, Thrissur, was notified under the said scheme. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the rejection by RTA, Thrissur and Ext.P3 is the judgment in W.A. No.712 2007 dated 29.01.2009. In view of the above, the stage carriage operated in the sector Pattambi – Palakkad for the full duration of the permit within the jurisdiction of RTA, Palakkad.

4. Thereafter though the petitioner had filed an application for renewal of Ext.P2 permit for a further period of five years, the RTA, Palakkad rejected the said application by order dated 29.07.2011 on the ground that the petitioner is seeking renewal of the permit on the entire route namely Guruvayur – Palakkad by including the portions of notified route falling within the jurisdiction of RTA, Thrissur. In other words, the RTA, Palakkad, found the petitioner's application to be not maintainable, as a valid permit for operation throughout the route was required, whereas the permit in the instant case was not a valid permit for operating on the entire route. The decision of the RTA, Palakkad, was challenged in a statutory appeal in MVAA No.515/2011, wherein by judgment dated 24.07.2004, the Tribunal set aside the decision of the RTA, Palakkad and directed reconsideration of the application for renewal on the route Palakkad – Pattambi through Ext.P4 judgment. The said judgment had become final in the absence of a challenge.

5. Pursuant to the said direction, the RTA, Palakkad, through Ext.P5 proceedings dated 24.10.2014, directed the Secretary, RTA, to obtain from the petitioner a fresh application for renewal of permit on the curtailed route Palakkad - Pattambi. The petitioner had also submitted Ext.P6 representation/undertaking to the Secretary, RTA on 02.06.2015 stating that the STAT had, through Ext.P4 judgment, directed a reconsideration of the renewal application on the curtailed route Palakkad – Pattambi. The petitioner gave up all other claims and confined her claims for renewal of the permit to the curtailed route alone, relinquishing all claims to the original route, Guruvayur - Palakkad. The petitioner thereafter filed W.P(C) No.