Skip to content


K. Venkannachar Vs. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petn. No. 569 of 1961
Judge
Reported inAIR1963Mys207; ILR1963KAR99; (1963)1MysLJ96
ActsMotor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 58(2); Mysore Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Rules, 1945 - Rules 127 and 144
AppellantK. Venkannachar
RespondentSecretary, Regional Transport Authority and anr.
Appellant AdvocateE.S. Venkataramaiah, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateD.M. Chandrasekhar, Adv.
Excerpt:
.....is quite wide and it is to be treated as though it is a title suit-when the objector filed an application under order 21 rule 97 claiming independent title to the property in question, the adjudication therein tantamount to a decree. further, when a person claiming title to the property in his possession obstructing the attempt by the decree holder to dispossess him form the suit property, the executing court is competent to consider all questions raised by the person offering obstruction against execution of the decree and pass appropriate orders as per provisions of order 21 rule 103 of c.p.c.,. the said order passed by the executing court has to be treated as a decree, as the proceedings under order 21 rule 97 is akin to a suit. the order of the executing court posting the case..........namely, 21, 21-a, 21-b, 22, 23, 24 and 25 appended to these rules and shall be addressed to the regional transport authority in accordance with section 45 of the said act.provided that an application for every stage carriage permit on any route shall be accompanied by a certificate issued by an officer of the revenue department not below the rank of an amildar to the effect that the applicant is solvent to the extent of a sum of at least rs. 25,000/-'.what has been assumed by the regional transport authority in directing the production of a solvency certificate is that the proviso to this rule is as much applicable to an application for renewal of a permit as it is to an application made in response to notification under rule 127. it is obvious that this interpretation placed on the.....
Judgment:

A.R. Somnath Iyer, J.

1. The short question involved in this writ petition is whether an application for renewal of a permit under the provisions of Section 58, M. V. Act should be accompanied by a certificate of solvency. The petitioner is a person who operates a stage carriage between Holavanahalli and Bangalore in the Districts of Tumkur and Bangalore during the last 30 years under the permits granted and renewed from time to time. But when he made an application for the renewal of that permit for a period of five years from April 1, 1961, he was called upon to produce a solvency certificate the production of which is in a proper case required by Rule 144 of the Mysore Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Rules, 1945. That Rule reads:

'144. Application form for permit: Every application for a permit should be in one of the appropriate forms, namely, 21, 21-A, 21-B, 22, 23, 24 and 25 appended to these rules and shall be addressed to the Regional Transport Authority in accordance with Section 45 of the said Act.

Provided that an application for every stage carriage permit on any route shall be accompanied By a certificate issued by an officer of the Revenue Department not below the rank of an Amildar to the effect that the applicant is solvent to the extent of a sum of at least Rs. 25,000/-'.

What has been assumed by the Regional Transport Authority in directing the production of a solvency certificate is that the proviso to this rule is as much applicable to an application for renewal of a permit as it is to an application made in response to notification under Rule 127. It is obvious that this interpretation placed on the proviso by the Regional Transport Authority is plainly unsustainable. An application for renewal of a permit is what may be made under Section 58 of the M. V. Act and it is true that Sub-section (2) of that section states that an application for the renewal of a permit shall be disposed of as if it were an application for a permit, which means, that the procedure to be adopted by the Regional Transport Authority for disposal of an application for renewal of a permit is the same which it has to adopt for the disposal of an application for a permit for which an application is made for the first time.

But what is incontrovertible is that the fact that the procedure for the disposal of an application for renewal of the permit is the same as that to be adopted for the disposal of an application for a permit for which an application is made for the first time, does not convert or transform an application for the renewal of a permit into an application made for the grant of a permit for the first time. That being so, it is obvious that an application for the renewal of a permit is not an application for a permit attracting the proviso to Rule 144 of the Mysore Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Rules, 1945 since that proviso is applicable only, as it expressly states, to an application for a stage carriage permit.

2. We must, in our opinion, reach that conclusion for an additional reason which is, that as the proviso states it governs only cases in which an application is presented in response to a notification calling for such applications under Rule 127 of the Rules and the case before us was not one such.

3. The impugned direction by which the Regional Transport Authority called upon the petitioner to produce the solvency certificate cannot, therefore, be sustained and it is accordingly quashed. The Regional Transport Authority will now dispose of the application for renewal made by the petitioner according to law.

4. No costs.


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