Skip to content


Sri. Ranga Vilas Motor Transport Krishnagiri Vs. State of Mysore and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petn. No. 298 of 1968
Judge
Reported inAIR1968Kant278; AIR1968Mys278; (1968)1MysLJ365
ActsMotor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 62 and 63
AppellantSri. Ranga Vilas Motor Transport Krishnagiri
RespondentState of Mysore and ors.
Excerpt:
.....mysore border on the basis of the aforesaid temporary permit granted by the madras state transport authority but is prevented from proceeding to bangalore because of the failure of respondent-2 to grant counter-signature. the submission of the learned counsel, in our opinion, is well founded......authority but is prevented from proceeding to bangalore because of the failure of respondent-2 to grant counter-signature. aggrieved by the inaction of respondent-2, on 5th february, 1968, the petitioner filed the above writ petition under article 226 of the constitution of india for a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order to the 2nd respondent to make necessary counter-signature on the petitioner's permit valid till 30th april, 1968 or such further period for which the petitioner's temporary permit might be valid and current.(3) the facts are not disputed. it was urged by sri. v. p. raman, the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the temporary permit on the inter-state route 'salem to bangalore' has been granted by the madras authority.....
Judgment:

Govinda Bhat, J.

(1) The petitioner is carrying on the business of plying stage carriages on various routes under permits issued by the appropriate authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereinafter called the Act. One such permit issued by the State Transport Authority, Madras, and countersigned by the Mysore State Transport Authority (Respondent-2) was on operate a stage carriage service on the route 'Salem to Bangalore, via Dharmapuri, Krishnagiri and Hosur. The said permit was due to expire on 31st December, 1967.

The petitioner having applied for its renewal, pending disposal of the said application, the Madras State Transport Authority granted on 18th December 1967 a temporary permit to the petitioner for a period of four months, valid from 1st January, 1968 to 30th April, 1968. Respondent-2 to whom the petitioner had applied for counter-signature granted counter-signature on the said temporary permit only for the period from 1st January, 1968 till 15th January, 1968. On 30th December, 1967, the Secretary to the Transport Commissioner, Madras withdrew the temporary permit. Against the said order, petitioner preferred Writ Petn. No. 89 of 1968 in the High Court of Judicature at Madras and in the said writ petition the said order was stayed. The said Writ Petition is at present pending in the High Court of Judicature at Madras.

The application of the petitioner for renewal of permit was rejected by the Madras Authority on 8th January, 1968, and against the said order of rejection an appeal having been preferred that matter is now pending before the Appellate Authority in Madras.

(2) Petitioner approached the 2nd respondent for further extension of the counter-signature on his temporary permit till 30th April, 1968. On the said application, the 2nd respondent has not passed any orders. The petitioner is operating his stage carriage service on the 'Salem-Bangalore' route upto the Mysore border on the basis of the aforesaid temporary permit granted by the Madras State Transport Authority but is prevented from proceeding to Bangalore because of the failure of respondent-2 to grant counter-signature. Aggrieved by the inaction of respondent-2, on 5th February, 1968, the petitioner filed the above Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order to the 2nd respondent to make necessary counter-signature on the petitioner's permit valid till 30th April, 1968 or such further period for which the petitioner's temporary permit might be valid and current.

(3) The facts are not disputed. It was urged by Sri. V. P. Raman, the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the temporary permit on the Inter-State route 'Salem to Bangalore' has been granted by the Madras Authority valid for a period of four months from 1st January, 1968 the counter-signing Authority in Mysore State was bound to grant counter-signature, if it decided to do so, for the entire duration of the temporary permit and not for a part of the period of the permit. The submission of the learned counsel, in our opinion, is well founded. A permit granted by the appropriate Authority in one State on an Inter-State route is not valid in the other State unless it is counter-signed by the appropriate Authority in the other State.

A temporary permit is granted for a limited period not to exceed four months to authorise the use of a transport vehicle temporarily in any of the four circumstances mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) of Section 62 of the Act. Clause (d) provides for the grant of a temporary permit pending decision on an application for renewal of a permit. In the circumstances warranted by clause (d) of Section 62, the Madras Authority granted a temporary permit on 18th December, 1967 for a period of four months commencing from 1st January 1968. The route 'Salem to Bangalore' is an Inter-State route.

Under Section 62 what is authorised is the grant of a temporary permit for a period conterminous with the temporary need. The authority concerned has no power to grant a permit for a period beyond the period of the temporary need. It follows from Section 62 that the duration of a temporary permit should be conterminous with the temporary need and that the period is not to be fixed arbitrarily. Sub-section (3) of Section 63 of the Act states that the provisions of Chapter IV of the Act relating to the grant, revocation and suspension of permits shall apply to the grant, revocation and suspension of counter-signature of permits. Consequently, it follows that the provisions of Section 62 relating to the grant of temporary permits govern the grant of counter-signature to temporary permits also. When the period of the temporary permit has to be conterminous with the temporary need, the counter-signature also has to be for the same same period.

(4) When the Madras Authority granted the temporary permit for a period of four months, it was on the basis that the temporary need existed for the duration of that permit. When the duration of the temporary need in a part of the route from Salem to Mysore border is four months, the only logical conclusion is that the duration of the temporary need for the entire route is till 30th April, 1968. In that view, when respondent 2 decided to grant counter-signature, it could not have limited it for a period of 15 days but should have grated for the entire period of the permit. Therefore, respondent-2 was in error in not granting the counter-signature for the duration of the petitioner's temporary permit. We therefore allow this writ petition and issue a direction to the Mysore State Transport Authority to grant counter-signature to the permit of the petitioner to be valid till the expiry of the temporary permit on the 'Salem-Bangalore' route. No costs.

Petition allowed


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //