AIR 2006 KERALA 177 ::2006 (2) AJHAR (NOC) 690 (KER) ::2006 (4) AIR Kant HCR 1 ::2006 A I H C 2259 ::(2007) 2 ACC 279 ::2006 (3) ICC 57 ::(2006) 3 JCR 313 (KER) ::2006 (2) KerLT 172 ::ILR(ker) 2006 (1) KER 863

Kerala High Court

Hon'ble Judge(s): M. Ramachandran, K. K. Denesan, M. N. Krishnan , JJJ

Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988) , S.90— Revision - Filing of - Locus standi - "Person aggrieved" - Meaning of - Grant of stage carriage permit - Existing operator cannot invoke revisional jurisdiction on sole ground that grant of permit to opposite party prejudicially affects his rights. AIR 1999 Kant 5, Dissented from. Section 90 does not confer power on the STAT to pass orders under that Section merely for the reason that the order of the STA or RTA is improper or illegal. The jurisdiction will be exercised only when an application is filed by a person aggrieved. To hold otherwise will be to render the words "person aggrieved" in S. 90 redundant and otiose. The scope of the expression "person aggrieved" occurring in S. 90 shall conform to the scheme of the enactment whereas for the purpose of judicial review a different yardstick may be warranted so as to meet the ends of justice.(Para 25 26) The existing operator cannot invoke the revisional jurisdiction on the sole ground that the grant of permit to the opposite party prejudicially affects his rights. It is not as though he can impeach each and every order of the RTA or STA alleging illegality or impropriety. He can challenge only those orders against which he can have a legal grievance. He cannot be a person aggrieved in respect of every....