Skip to content


Hanuman Transport Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. R.T.A. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberW.P. Nos. 19247 and 19248 of 1984
Judge
Reported inILR1985KAR4121
ActsMotor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 62(2)
AppellantHanuman Transport Co. (P) Ltd.
RespondentR.T.A.
Appellant AdvocateM. Rangaswamy, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateL.M. Pandurangaswamy, Adv. for R-1 and ;M.R. Venkatanarasimhachar, Adv. for R-2 and 3
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
.....permit confined to four months -- if order of restraint mot cancelled within four months fresh temporary permit for similar period may be granted -- order assigning timings must he a speaking order containing reasons.;(i) according to sub-section 2(i) of section 62 of the act, the temporary permit can be granted only for the period during which the order of restraint for granting the pucca permit continues and not beyond that. therefore, the temporary permits in question ought to have been confined to a period of four months or till the order restraining the rta from granting the pucca permits on the routes in question is cancelled, whichever is earlier. in case, on or before the expiry of four months the order of restraint is not cancelled, it is open to the rta to grant fresh..........act, clearly empowers the r.t.a. to grant temporary permit in such a situation and the temporary permit granted in such circumstances is operative only during the period of restraint against granting of pucca permit. as such, it is not possible to hold that the temporary permits granted to respondents 2 and 3 are vitiated in any manner.3. but, it is necessary to modify the period for which the temporary permits in question are granted to respondents 2 and 3. according to sub-section 2(0 of section 62 of the act, the temporary permit can be granted only for the period during which the order of restraint for granting the pucca permit continues and not beyond that. therefore, the temporary permits in question ought to have been con-fined to a period of four months or till the order.....
Judgment:
ORDER

E. A. Swami,J.

1. In these Petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners have sought for quashing the temporary permits granted to Respondents 2 and 3 under Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') on the route Mangalore to Hermunde via Moodabidri, Karkala and back.

2. It is not in dispute that there is a determination made in respect of these routes under Section 47(3) of the Act, by the first Respondent. It is also not in dispute that on the date of issue of temporary permits to Respondents 2 and 3, there was an order of restraint granted by the KSTAT on 16-7-1984 in Revision Nos. 153 to 160 of 1984 - out of them one Revision Petition which relates to the routes in question is Revision No. 157/84. The order of restraint passed by the KSTAT restraining the first Respondent from granting pucca stage carriage permits in respect of the applications filed by Respondents 2 and 3 and others, has been in operation even to this day. That being so, sub-section (2) of Section 62 of the Act, clearly empowers the R.T.A. to grant temporary permit in such a situation and the temporary permit granted in such circumstances is operative only during the period of restraint against granting of pucca permit. As such, it is not possible to hold that the temporary permits granted to Respondents 2 and 3 are vitiated in any manner.

3. But, it is necessary to modify the period for which the temporary permits in question are granted to Respondents 2 and 3. According to sub-section 2(0 of Section 62 of the Act, the temporary permit can be granted only for the period during which the order of restraint for granting the pucca permit continues and not beyond that. Therefore, the temporary permits in question ought to have been con-fined to a period of four months or till the order restraining the RTA from granting the pucca permits on the routes in question is cancelled, whichever is earlier. In case, on or before the expiry of four months the order of restraint is not cancelled, it is open to the RTA to grant fresh temporary permits for a similar period [See Hanuman Transport Co. (P) Ltd., and another vs. RTA, Uakshina Kannada and Ors., ILR 1983 KAR 4115].

4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the timings are assigned by the Secretary, RTA, without taking into consideration the facts pleaded by the existing operators on the route in question. On a perusal of the temporary permits produced as Annexures-D & F, it is apparent that the Secretary, RTA has not given any reason for assigning the timings. When the timings are required to be assigned after notice to the existing operators and keeping in view the convenience of thetraveling public and also the priority of the existing operators as far as possible, it is incumbent upon the Secretary, R.T.A. to give reasons for over-ruling the objections raised by the objectors to the timings proposed to be assigned, and the reasons for assigning the timings, The proceeding relating to assigning of timings is as much quasi-judicial as the proceeding relating to grant of permit. The order must be a speaking order. It must contain the reasons on the basis of which the timings are assigned. In the instant case, no reasons are forthcoming in the order of the Secretary, R.T.A. As such, the order of the secretary, RTA, assigning timings to the two temporary permits in question produced as Annexures D and F, cannot be sustained.

5. Accordingly, these petitions are allowed in the following terms:

(i) The temporary permits in question granted to Respondents 2 and 3 are not disturbed. However, the operation of them is confined to a period as stated in para-3 above.

(ii) The timings assigned to the said two temporary permits by the Secretary, R.T,A. are hereby quashed. The matter relating to assigning of timings stands remitted to the Secretary, RTA, with a direction to assign the timings afresh after notice to the petitioners and such other operators who are operating on the route in question and in the light ofthe observations made in this order within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the order. In the meanwhile, Respondents 2 and 3 are permitted to operate on the existing timings.


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