N.M. Philippose vs R. T. A. and others

K. Sreedharan, J.—Petitioner is a stage carriage operator on the route Mulamkuzby-Palacnode Hospital Junction. In pursuance to the permit his vehicle KCF 5259 Is plying on the route. Third respondent has obtained permit on the route Mulamkuzhy - Moozhikulam. He is plying his vehicle KBF 8739 on that route. These routes overlap. On account of clash of timings petitioner moved MVARP 575/90 before the State transport Appelate Tribunal. Tribunal by order dated 3-10-1990 directed the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority to consider the objection raised by the petitioner with notice to third respondent and to fix the time schedules for the vehicles. Thereupon, the Secretary RTA fixed the timings of the vehicles as evidenced by Ext. P2 order. It appears that the third respondent was not satisfied with Ext. P2. Thereupon when he got the pucca permit, he got the timings changed as seen in Ext. P4. Petitioner contends that his objection Ext. P3 was not considered while fixing the schedule of timings by Ext. P4. He also raised a contention that the timing conference was convened by the Joint Regional Transport Officer and that the Secretary, RTA has only approved the suggestion made by the Joint Regional Transport Officer. The learned counsel representing the third respondent submitted that Ext P4 proceeding will show that the timing conference was convened by the Joint RTO in the presence of the Secretary and so there is no infirmity in Ext. P4 for this court to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The power to grant the permit vests with the Regional Transport Authority. While, granting the permit, the schedule of timings must also be fixed by that authority. Rule 212(I) of the Kerala Rule inter alia states that the Regional Transport Authority may from time to time by a general order or by a special order prescribe a schedule of timings for each stage carriage other than that belonging to the state transport undertaking. Clause 3 of that Rule allows the Regional Transport Authority by a resolution to delegate to its Secretary the powers conferred on it under - the - Rule. So the power to prescribe a schedule of timings for a stage carriage can be exercised only by the Sfcretary of the Regional Transport Authority who has been given the power on delgation by the Transport Authority by passing a resolution to that effect. The Joint RTO who is not the Secretary to the Regional Transport Authority cannot exercise the power of prescribing the schedule of timings Consequently he is not to convene a timing conference either. Ext. P4 proceedings makes it clear that the timing conference was convened by the Joint RTO. The Secretary RTA is seen to have endorsed the decision taken - by the Joint RTO. This is not a proper exercise of power. The Secretaiy RTA who is a delegate of the Regional Transport Authority, is not to delegate his power to another officer. It is trite law that a delegate cannot further delegate. The power given to the Secretary RTA under Rule 212 of the Kerala Rules should be exercised by the Secretary RTA, namely, the Regional Transport Officer himself. This having not been done in Ext. P4 I quash the same. The matter is remitted back to the Secretary RTA Ernakulam for fixing the schedule of timings of the vehicles belonging to the petitioner and the third respondent. While fixing the time schedule, Ext-F3 representation submitted by the petitioner should be taken note of. I make it clear that petitioner and third respondent should be afforded reasonable opportunity to submit their contentions. Final order in this regard should be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till that time as an interim measure third respondent will be allowed to ply his bus in accordance with Ext. P4.

Original Petition is disposed of in the above terms.