K.A. Swami, J.
1. In this Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners have sought for quashing the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority, Dakshina Kannada dated 20-10-1984 passed in Subject No. 515/84-85 produced as Annexure C granting a temporary permit to the second respondent on the Route Mangalore to Kollur via Moodabidri, Karkala, Ajekar, Mudrady, Hebry, Belange, Halady, S. Narayana, Arnpar, and back and also to quash the temporary permit issued consequent thereto and produced as Annexure-D.
2. Regional Transport Authority, D.K., by its resolution dated 21-4-1984 passed in Sub. Nos. 16,11,22,19,18,15,26 and 23/84-85 has made a determination under Section 47(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred as the Act) in respect of 9 routes. The route in question is one of them. That resolution has been challenged by the petitioners in Revision Petitions 153 to 160/1984 before the K.S.T.A.T. There was an interim order passed by the K.S.T.A.T., on 16 7-84 restraining the R.T.A., D.K., from considering the applications to be received by it in response to the notification under Section 57(2) of the Act, alreadypublished by the R.T.A., in the Karnataka Gazette dated 28-6-1984 at pages 2235 and 2236 of Part IX.A in respect of the routes mentioned in the aforesaid resolution challenged in the aforesaid Revision Petitions. Revision Petition No. 154/84 related to the determination made in respect of the route in question viz., Mangalore to Kollur. The second respondent and 17 others had filed applications for grant of pucca permit in respect of the route in question even before the interim order in the aforesaid terms was passed by the K.S.T. A.T., in the aforesaid Revision Petitions. In view of the aforesaid interim order passed by the Appellate Tribunal those applications could not be considered.
3. In this situation the second respondent has filed an application for grant of a temporary permit in respect of the route in question. The first respondent has granted the same as per the resolution produced as Annexure-C and issued temporary permit as per Annexure-D for a period from 2-11-1984 to 29-2-1985 or till the pucca permit is issued, whichever is earlier.
4. The contention of Sri Rangaswamy, Learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the first petitioner has been operating on the entire route in question whereas the second petitioner is operating on the section of the route. That the interim order passed in Revision Petition No. 154/84 by the K.S.T.A.T., has come to an end on 13 12-84 as on that date the Revision Petition itself has been dismissed, therefore it is submitted that the temporary permit granted to the petitioner must be held to have become inoperative from 13-12r84.
5. On the contrary, it is submitted by Sri. M.R.V. Achar, Learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent, that on the date the temporary permit was granted to the petitioner, the interim order passed in Revision Petition No. 154/84 was in operation, therefore, the grant was valid having regard tothe provisions contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 62 of the Act, therefore, a mere fact that the Revision Petition was subsequently dismissed and as a result of it, the interim order came to an end did not affect the validity and operation of temporary permit. It is not possible to accept this contention having regard to the provisions contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 62 of the Act. First proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 62 of the Act, prohibits grant of temporary permit on the route in respect of which an application for grant of pucca permit is filed. Sub-section (2) of Section 62 of the Act, carves out an exception to the aforesaid bar contained in the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 62 of the Act. The first proviso to Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2) of Section 62 are as follows: -
'62. (1) A Regional Transport Authority may without following the procedure laid down in Section 57, grant permits, to be effective for a limited period not in any case to exceed four months, to authorise the use of a transport vehicle temporarily-(a) (b) (c) (d) xxx xxx xxx
Provided further that a temporary permit under this section shall, in no case, be granted in respect of any route or area specified in an application for the grant of a new permit under Section 46 or Section 54 during the pendency of the application;
(the 2nd proviso is omitted as unnecessary)
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1) a temporary permit may be granted thereunder in respect of any route orarea where-
(i) no permit could be issued under Section 48 or Section 51 or Section 54 in respect of that route or area by reason of an order of a Court or other competent authority restraining the issue of the same, for a period not exceeding the period for which the issue of the permit has been so restrained ; or
(ii) as a result of the suspension by a Court or other competent authority of the permit of any vehicle in respect of that route or area, there is no transport vehicle of the same class with a valid permit in respect of that route or area, or there is no adequate number of such vehicles in respect of that route or area, for a period not exceeding the period of such suspension :
Provided that the number of transport vehicles in respect of which the temporary permit is so granted shall not exceed the number of vehicles in respect of which the issue of a permit has been restrained or as the case may be, the permit hasbeen suspended.'
In the aforesaid provisions, it is very pertinent to notice the following words - 'a temporary permit may be granted thereunder in respect of any route or area....for a period not exceeding the period for which the issue of the permit has been so restrained.' Thus, the exception carved out is only to the extent of the period during which there is a restraint to issue the pucca permits. It is not possible to place any other construction. The other requirements of the aforesaid Sub-section (2) of Section 62 of the Act, it is nobody's case that the same are not satisfied. Therefore, it is not necessary to consider whether the other requirements of the aforesaid Sub-section (2) are satisfied or not. If the construction suggested by Sri Achar is to be accepted, it will be only at the cost of ignoring specific and clear words contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 62 of the Act, which are underlined and it will be nothing but doing violence to the statute. The effect of sub section (2) of Section 62 of the Act, is that if there is an order passed by the Court or the Competent Authority restraining the issue of pucca stage carriage permit, temporary stage carriage permit can be granted only for the period of restraint and there is no jurisdiction in the granting authority to grant a temporary stage, carriage permit for a period exceeding the period of restraint. In such cases, the period for which a temporary permit can beissued at a time, is for a period of four months or till the restraint for issuing pucca stage carriage permit imposed by the Court or the Competent Authority, as the case may be, is removed, whichever is earlier. It is also necessary to emphasise that the other requirements of Sub-section (2) of Section 62 of the Act, must also be satisfied.
6. As it is already pointed out, the order of restraint passed by the KSTAT was operating from 16-7-1984 to 13-12-1984. The temporary permit in question was granted on 20-10-1984 and the same was issued on 2-11-1984; though the temporary permit is made operative till 29-2-1985 or (sic) the grant of pucca stage carriage permit, whichever is earlier. Thisis as pointed out above, grossly opposed to Sub-section (2) of Section 62 of the Act. The temporary stage carnage permit in question cannot be held to remain in force alter 13-12-1984 having regard to the fact that the restraint is removed on 13-12-1984. Thus, from 13-12-1984, the temporary permit granted to the 2nd Respondent on the route as per Annexures 'C and 'D' has ceased to be operative.
7. In view of the conclusion reached by me, the petition is entitled to succeed ; therefore, it is not necessary toconsider the other contentions urged by Sri M. Rangaswamy, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed in part, in the following terms :
The temporary stage carriage permit granted to the 2nd Respondent on the route in question as per Annexures 'C' and 'D' has ceased to be operative with effect from 13-12-1984. Consequently, the second Respondent isrestrained from operating the service pursuant to that.