Shaffique,J
Writ petitioner is the appellant who challenges the judgment dated 23/07/2014 in W.P.C.No.10082/2014.
2. Petitioner is a stage carriage operator having stage carriage vehicle with Reg.No.KL-09-H-6815, who applied for issue of regular permit for operating a new circular route, Palakkad Municipality stadium bus stand to Palakkad Municipality stadium bus stand. A portion of the said route upto Appuchettiar Teashop, Midhunappallam covering a length of 2.1 Kilometres was a virgin route having no stage carriage operation. 1st respondent had sought for a report regarding the road fitness. On that basis, the matter was considered by the 2nd respondent, Regional Transport Authority and the application was rejected. The reason for rejection was that the proposed route through Manappullikavu junction to Chandra Nagar (NH Road) is in a damaged situation and no stage carriages are operating in the said route. No permits have also been granted to conduct stage carriage operation. Road widening work and other improvement works are being carried on in the said route. Hence it was found that it is not feasible to grant permit in the aforesaid route.
3. The learned Single Judge, therefore, dismissed the writ petition inter alia observing that the report of the Field Officer indicated that it is not feasible to grant permit to the petitioner in the said route in view of the road widening work which was in progress. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that several vehicles are passing through the said circular route on day to day basis and there is no reason to deny regular permit to the petitioner on the ground that the road widening work is being going on. That apart, it is contended that there is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act which permits the Regional Transport Authroity to refuse permit on the ground that road work is going on.
4. Needless to state that the reports available on record and placed before the learned Single Judge by way of Ext.P4 clearly indicate that the RTA had called for a report regarding the route in question. It was found that road widening work was being carried out and that substantial construction was being done in the form of bridge construction and other improvement works. Under such circumstances, since the RTA had come to the conclusion that no stage carriages have been granted permit, due to lack of proper road, it may not be possible for this Court to interfere with the said decision making process. In the said circumstances, we are of the view that the RTA was justified in refusing to grant permit in the said route.
5. However, once the road work is completed, it shall always be open for the petitioner to apply for fresh permit which shall be considered by the authorities, in accordance with law.
Since no grounds are made out to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ appeal, reserving the right of the petitioner to approach the authority concerned for a fresh permit after the road work is completed, this writ appeal is dismissed.
(sd/-) (ASHOK BHUSHAN, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) (sd/-) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE) jsr