Skip to content


TurabuddIn Haji Niaz Ahmad and ors. Vs. the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Misc. Writ No. 3346 of 1971
Judge
Reported inAIR1972All146
ActsMotor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 46, 47(3) and 62; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908
AppellantTurabuddIn Haji Niaz Ahmad and ors.
RespondentThe Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut and ors.
Appellant AdvocateL.P. Naithani, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateStanding Counsel
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
motor vehicles - grant of permit - section 62 proviso 1, 46 and 47 of motor vehicles act, 1939 - regional transport authority decided to open new route and fixed strength of route also - no formal applications invited so far - applications received for grant of permit - temporary permit issued - objections by existing operator of other route - until vacancy arises, applications cannot be entertained for maiden route - on existing route, application may be considered. - - it is a well accepted rule of interpretation that the court should, place harmonious construction to give full effect to the various provisions of the act and to avoid any interpretation which would render any provision of the act nugatory. the secretary was, therefore, well within his jurisdiction to grant temporary.....orderk.n. singh, j. 1. this is a petition under article 226 of the constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 12th may. 1971, of the secretary, regional transport authority, meerut, granting temporary permits to respondents nos. 3 to 12 of muzaffarnagar-budhana-kurthal route. petitioners nos. 1 and 2 are existing operators on muzaffarnagar-budhana-kandla, route, which is completely overlapped by muzaffar-nagar-budhana-kurthal route. petitioner no. 3 claims to be an applicant for a permanent stage carriage permit on the route in question. 2. muzaffarnagar-budhana-kandla route is fifty kilometers in length. there are 35 stage carriages plying on this route. the town of kurthal is situated at a distance of about eight kilometers from budhana and, therefore, a.....
Judgment:
ORDER

K.N. Singh, J.

1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 12th May. 1971, of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Meerut, granting temporary permits to respondents Nos. 3 to 12 of Muzaffarnagar-Budhana-Kurthal route. Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 are existing operators on Muzaffarnagar-Budhana-Kandla, route, which is completely overlapped by Muzaffar-nagar-Budhana-Kurthal route. Petitioner No. 3 claims to be an applicant for a permanent stage carriage permit on the route in question.

2. Muzaffarnagar-Budhana-Kandla route is fifty kilometers in length. There are 35 stage carriages plying on this route. The town of Kurthal is situated at a distance of about eight kilometers from Budhana and, therefore, a stage carriage operating from Muzaffarnagar to Kurthal overlaps the entire route from the Muzaffarnagar-Budhana-Kandla route. The Regional Transport Authority by its resolution No. 53 dated April 5/6, 1971 decided to open Muzaffarnagar-Budhana Kurthal route and classified the same as 'A' class route. Under Section 47 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act the regional transport authority fixed the strength of the route at 10. Although the strength was fixed and the route was classified, the Regional Transport Authority has not so far invited any applications for the grantof permits on the route in question. A number of applications were received by the R. T. A. for the grant of temporary permits on the route in question. The Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority in exercise of the delegated powers of the Regional Transport Authority granted ten temporary permits on the route in question to respondents Nos. 3 to 12 to the petition. The petitioners have challenged the validity of the grant of temporary permits to the respondents on a number of grounds.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that since applications for the grant of permanent permits on the route in question were pending, no temporary permit could legally be granted under Section 62 of the Act. The delegation of its power to its Secretary to grant temporary permit by the Regional Transport Authority is invalid and, in any case, the order granting temporary permits is not of the Secretary, but of the Chairman, who had no authority in law to grant any temporary permit.

4. Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act confers power on the Regional Transport Authority to grant temporary permits. The first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 62 places a restriction on the power of the Regional Transport Authority to grant temporary permits. According to this proviso the Regional Transport Authority in no case is authorised to grant temporary permits in respect of any route or area in respect of which applications for the grant of permanent stage carriage permits are pending under Section 46 of the Act. During the pendency of such applications, no temporary permit can legally be granted. The question that falls for consideration in the present case is whether on the 5th April. 1971 when the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority granted temporary permits, was any application pending for the grant of permanent stage carriage permit on the route in question as contemplated by the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 62 of the Act.

5. In 1968 a number of applications were made suo motu by various persons including petitioner No. 3 for the grant of permanent stage carriage permit on the route in question although the route was not opened or accepted and no strength had been fixed. The Regional Transport Authority published those applications in the gazette dated 12th October. 1968 and invited objections. On 29th October. 1968 petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 who are the existing operators on the Muzaffarnagar-Budhana-Kandla route filed objections. Their main ground of objection was that since the Regional Transport Authority had not opened any route, nor it had fixed the strength on the routeas required by Section 47 (3) of the Act, the applications could not be considered in law, and that the same should be rejected summarily. (A copy of the objection is filed as Annexure 'B' to the petition). The applications so made in 1968 were not considered by the Regional Transport Authority and it appears that those applications were kept pending. In fact, the applications could not be considered and no permit could be granted as no route had been opened and no strength on the route had been fixed, as required by Section 47 (3) of the Act The Regional Transport Authority for the first time decided to open the route in question by its resolution dated 5th and 6th April, 1971 and on that very day it fixed the limit of ten permits on the route in question. Thereafter the Regional Transport Authority has not invited any applications so far. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the applications made in 1968 for the grant of permanent permits on the route in question, are applications under Section 46 of the Act, hence the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 62 is fully attracted to the present case and the Regional Transport Authority had no jurisdiction to grant any temporary permit during the pendency of those applications.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent has urged that an application under Section 46 for the grant of permanent stage carriage permits is not an application in the eye of law as applications were made prior to the opening of the route by the Regional Transport Authority and also prior to the fixation of strength on that route. In the absence of any vacancy on any route, an application filed by any person sup motu for grant of permanent permit is meaningless, and cannot be taken into account for purposes of granting temporary permit, hence the proviso to Sub-section (X) of Section 62 is not attracted and the Regional Transport Authority had full jurisdiction to grant temporary permits.

7. In order to appreciate the question debated before me it is necessary to consider the scheme of the Act. Chapter IV of the Act relates to the control of Transport Vehicles. It contains Sections 42 to 68. Section 46 lays down the procedure for making application for the grant of stage carriage permits. It also prescribed the particulars which are required to be mentioned in the applications. One of the particulars required by Section 46 is the route or routes, or the area or areas, to which the application relates. The existence of a route is therefore necessary. Route according to the definition given in the Act means a line of travel which specifies the highway, which may be traversed by amotor vehicle between a terminus and another. When the Regional Transport Authority decides to open a route, it means that the stage carriage shall ply from one terminus to another under a permit granted by it under Chapter IV of the Act. Section 47 prescribes procedure which has to be followed by the Regional Transport Authority in considering applications for stage carriage permit. The section runs as follows:---

'47 (1). Procedure of Regional Transport Authority in considering application for stage carriage permit -- A Regional Transport Authority shall, in considering an application for a stage carriage permit, have regard to the following matters, namely,

(a) the interests of the public generally;

(b) the advantages to the public of the service to be provided, including the saving of time likely to be effected thereby and any convenience arising from journeys not being broken;

(c) the adequacy of other passenger transport services operating or likely to operate in the near future whether by road or other means, between the places to be served;

(d) the benefit to any particular locality or localities likely to be afforded by the service;

(e) the operation by the applicant --of other transport services, including those in respect of which applications from him for permits are pending;

(f) the condition of the roads included in the proposed route or area; and shall also take into consideration any representations made by persons already providing passenger transport facilities by any means along or near the proposed route or area, or by any association representing persons interested in the provision of road transport facilities recognised in that behalf by the State Government, or by any local authority or police authority within whose jurisdiction any part of the proposed route or area lies;

Provided that other conditions being equal, an application for a stage carriage permit from a co-operative society registered or deemed to have been registered under any enactment in force for the time being shall, as far as may be given preference over applications from individual owners.

(2) A Regional Transport Authority shall refuse to grant a stage carriage permit if it appears from any timetable furnished that the provisions of this Act relating to the speed at which vehicles may be driven are likely to be contravened;

Provided that before such refusal an opportunity be given to the applicant toamend the timetable so as to conform to the said provisions.

(3) A Regional Transport Authority may, having regard to the matters mentioned in Sub-section (1), limit the number of stage carriages generally or of any specified type for which stage carriage permits may be granted in the region or in any specified area or on any specified route within the region.'

8. Regional Transport Authority in considering an application for a stage carriage permit is required to consider the matters stated in various Clauses (a) to (f) of Sub-section (1) of Section 47, and also the representations made by existing operators and other authorities mentioned in Clause (f). Sub-section (3) of Section 47 is a mandatory provision which requires the Regional Transport Authority to fix the number of stage carriages for which permits may be granted on any route. Section 48 of the Act confers power on the Regional Transport Authority to grant stage carriage permit, and to impose conditions specified in Sub-section (3) of Section 48. Sub-section (1) of Section 48 enjoins upon the Regional Transport Authority to exercise the power of grant of stage carriage permit subject to the provisions of Section 47 of the Act. The Regional Transport Authority is under an obligation to grant permits only within the limits fixed by it under Sub-section (3) of Section 47. At the time of the grant of permits under Section 48 of the Act, it cannot transgress the limit fixed by it under Sub-section (3) of Section 47.

9. Section 57 of the Act lays down the manner for making application and procedure to be followed in considering application for grant of permits under Sub-section (2) of Section 57. An application for stage carriage permit can be made by any person suo motu without there being any invitation for that purpose by the Regional Transport Authority, in addition to that applications for the grant of permits can also be made on the invitation of the Regional Transport Authority. Sub-section (3) of Section 57 requires the Regional Transport Authority to publish applications so received, invite objections and to consider these representations at the time of the grant of permit. Proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 57 again enjoins the Regional Transport Authority to grant permit in accordance with the limit fixed by it under Sub-section (3) of Section 47. It further provides that if in granting any permit the Regional Transport Authority would exceed the limit so fixed it shall summarily reject the applications without following the procedure laid down in Section 57. Sub-section (3) of Section 57 therefore places the same limitations on the power of the Regional Transport Authority in grantingpermit as prescribed by Section 48 of the Act. The proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 57 makes it clear that if there is no vacancy on any route or if there is no route in respect of which no limit has been fixed in accordance with Sub-section (3) of Section 47, no application can be entertained and no permit can be granted by the Regional Transport Authority.

10. It is no doubt true that Section 46 of Sub-section (2) of Section 57 of the Act do not prescribe any time for making applications. According to the subsection (2) of Section 57 applications for grant of permit can be made in two ways, one by an applicant suo motu but such application must be made at least six weeks before the date when the applicant desires his permit to take effect. The period of six weeks is prescribed to enable the Regional Transport Authority to take steps for the publication of such applications. According to the other mode prescribed by the Sub-section, applications may be made for grant of permit on the invitation of such applications by the Regional Transport Authority. In the later case, generally some tune limit is fixed for making applications. The Regional Transport Authority invites applications in case of a new route, only after it has opened the route, fixed the limit of permits to be granted under Section 47 (3) of the Act. In the case of an existing route also applications for grant of permit can be invited only when it has decided to increase the limit fixed under Section 47 (3) or whenever there is vacancy on the route. The provisions of the Act are clear that the Regional Transport Authority has no power to invite applications or to grant permit in the absence of vacancy on a route. In a case of invitation by the Regional Transport Authority members of public desirous of obtaining permit are in a position to know the strength of the route and they get opportunity to make applications and to compete with other applicants. In case of suo motu applications no such opportunity is available.

11. The Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Mateen v. Ram Kailash Pandey, AIR 1963 SC 64, held that an advertisement tinder Section 57 (2) of the Act inviting applications for a new route should indicate a decision of the Regional Transport Authority under Section 47 (3) of the Act and the number specified in the advertisement would be the limit fixed under Section 47 (3) of the Act. In Jayaram Motor Service v. Sri Rajarathanam. Civil Appeal No. 95 of 1965, D/- 27-10-1967 (SC), the Supreme Court held that the Regional Transport Authority has first to fix the limit and after haying done so, it should consider the applications for grant ofpermits in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 57 of the Act. The question whether the determination of the limit of stage carriages required on a route should be done at a stage anterior to that of entertaining applications for stage carriage permits, or that it should be done at the time, it considers applications for grant of stage carriage permits on that route, came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in R. Obliswami Naidu v. Addl. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras, AIR 1969 SC 1130. While considering that question Supreme Court laid stress on two independent steps in connection with the grant of a permit. Their Lordships observed as under:--

'On an examination of the relevant provisions of the Act, and the purpose behind Sections 47 and 57, we are convinced that before granting a stage carriage permit two independent steps have to be taken. Firstly, there should be a determination by the R. T. A. under Section 47 (3) of the number of the stage carriages for which stage carriage permits may be granted in that route. Thereafter applications for stage carriage permits in that route should be entertained. The R. T. A. is not competent to grant stage carriage permits for more stage carriages than fixed under Section 47 (3).'

The above observations of the Supreme Court make it clear that no application for the grant of stage carriage permit can legally be entertained unless the Regional Transport Authority fixes the limit as required by Section 47 (3) of the Act. The legislative intent behind this restriction imposed on the power of the Regional Transport Authority in granting permit was further made clear by their Lordships in that very case in the following observation:--

'Sub-section (3) of Section 47 of the Act, if read by itself does not throw any light on the controversy before us, but if Sections 47 and 57 of the Act, are read together, it appears to us to be clear that the view taken by the Appellate Tribunal and the High Court is the correct view. If contrary view is taken, it will throw open the door for manipulations and nepotism. There may be possibility of the personality of the applicant influencing the decision of the R. T. A, on the question of need for a stage carriage permit in the route and thereby public interest which should be the main consideration while taking a decision under Section 47 (3) may suffer. If we accept the view taken by the R. T. A. as correct an operator who happens to apply for the route first will be in a commanding position. The R. T. A. will have no opportunity to choose between competingoperators, and hence, public interest might suffer.'

12. The Supreme Court has thus declared that the scheme of the Act as contained in Sections 47 and 57 of the Act shows that no application is legally maintainable for the grant of a permanent stage carriage permit unless a decision under Section 47 (3) is taken by the Regional Transport Authority. If persons are allowed to file applications suo motu without there being any vacancy or fixation of limit by the Regional Transport Authority under Section 47 (3) of the Act, the door for manipulations and nepotism will be thrown open. Further, other persons will have no opportunity to make applications as a result of which the Regional Transport Authority will have no opportunity to choose between competing operators, and that would be against public interest. In the case of Mohammad Ibrahim v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras. 'AIR 1970 SC 1542, the observations made by the Supreme Court in Obliswami Naidu's case, AIR 1969 SC 1130 were further explained. Referring to the observations in Naidu's case their Lordships observed that before applications could be received, there should be a determination under Section 47 (3) of the Act. The purpose of such a procedure was explained by the Supreme Court in the following words:--

'There should not be any room for elasticity of the number of permits at the time of consideration of application for grant. It is in the scheme of the Act that limit should be fixed before the grant of permit and proper effect can be given to these provisions by deciding upon the number of permits before applications for the grant of permits are invited under Section 57 (2) of the Act, and in other cases before applications for the grant of permits are published under Section 57 (3) of the Act, to enable persons to make representations. The central idea is that applicants and those who will make representations should all know the limits of number of permits to be granted in order to ensure free and fair competition.'

13. The above observation of the Supreme Court was made while considering the case of a maiden route. The Supreme Court made it clear that unless there is vacancy, no application under Section 46 of the Act can be entertained. In the absence of any vacancy on a particular route making of an application for grant of a permit is meaningless. The Regional Transport Authority is empowered to reject such applications summarily without following the procedure prescribed under Section 57 of the Act. If any contrary interpretation is given to the provisions contained in Chap. IVof the Act, the result would be that existing operators may render the power exercisable under Section 62 of the Act nugatory. The existing operators may go on making applications even without their being any vacancy in the hope that whenever there will be any vacancy on the route, their applications may be considered for grant of permits. If that procedure is allowed then those persons, who make applications earlier will have advantage over other persons and no opportunity will be available to members of public for making applications. The Regional Transport Authority will also have no choice and thus public interest would suffer,

14. Under Section 46 of the Act an application for grant of a permit is maintainable only when there is a vacancy on an existing route. In the case of: maiden route when no limit as required by Sub-section (3) of Section 47 is fixed, the making of an application would again be meaningless. The Act contemplates that whenever there is a vacancy, applications for grant of permits in that vacancy may be made, but in the absence of any vacancy no such applications are maintainable. It may be that an application made suo motu for grant of a stage carriage permit on an existing route can be considered by the Regional Transport Authority after it decides to increase the strength, but in case of a maiden route, that is not permissible. As observed by the Supreme Court, if a contrary view is taken door for manipulations and nepotism will be thrown open. Unscrupulous existing operators of a route or part of a route may go on making applications suo motu from time to time without there being any vacancy or determination of the limit on that route in the hope that whenever in future any vacancy may arise, their applications may be considered, and thus at every point of time some application or the other is kept pending. If that be so, the power of the Regional Transport Authority to grant temporary permits under Section 62 can never be exercised. There is nothing in the Act to show that the Legislature intended any such result in enacting first proviso to Section 62 of the Act.

The purpose of the proviso was to prevent abuse of power by the Regional Transport Authority in granting temporary permits. The purpose of the proviso is to ensure a fair competition and opportunity to the applicants whose applications may be pending before the Regional Transport Authority for grant of permanent permits. If applications made for grant of permanent stage carriage permits are pending in respect of certain vacancy declared by the Regional Transport Authority, grant of temporary permit to any applicant during the pendency of such applications is bound to give advantage to him over others and at the stage of consideration of applications for grant of permanent permits the persons holding such temporary permits may have weightage in their favour. The Regional Transport Authority may in certain cases go on postponing consideration of applications so that it may continue to grant temporary permits to some of the applicants. The Legislature enacted the proviso to prevent any such abuse of power. The proviso does not come into play unless vacancy is declared, applications are made, and are pending for grant of permanent stage carriage permit This interpretation gives full effect to all the provisions of the Act. It is a well accepted rule of interpretation that the Court should, place harmonious construction to give full effect to the various provisions of the Act and to avoid any interpretation which would render any provision of the Act nugatory. I am, therefore, of the opinion that having regard to the provisions contained in Sections 46, 47, 48 and 57 of the Act, it is clear that the applications made suo motu for grant of permits without there being any vacancy on the route, are no applications under Section 46 of the Act within the meaning of the first proviso of Section 62 of the Act.

15. The learned counsel for petitioners has placed reliance on the case of Tara Singh v. State Transport Authority Tribunal, AIR 1959 All 253 in support of his contention that an application filed suo motu by an operator is a valid application which could legally be considered for the grant of permits under Section 57 of the Act I have considered that case carefully. The main question in that case was; whether an application made by an applicant suo motu under Section 57 (2) of the Act which did not mention the date when his permit was to take effect was maintainable. On a difference of opinion between two Judges the question was referred to a third Judge who answered the question holding that the requirement of mentioning the date in the application made suo motu was not mandatory, and in the absence of specification of any date, such application, would not be rejected The case of Tara Singh (supra) is, therefore, not relevant for purposes of the present case. Sub-section (2) of Section 57 itself lays down that application for grant of permit can be made suo motu. There may be cases where vacancies exist on a route and the R. T. A. was not taking steps for inviting any application. In that eventany person is entitled to make application suo motu for the grant of permanent stage carriage permit under Section 57 (2) of the Act, the applications so made cannot be rejected by the R. T. A. on the ground that no applications had been invited. The R. T. A. while considering applications made in response to its invitation for applications has to consider the applications made suo motu also. The maintainability of an application under Section 57 (2) of the Act depends upon the existence of vacancy on the route. The case of Tara Singh, therefore, does not lend any support to the petitioner's contention.

16. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Secretary Regional Transport Authority has not empowered under the Act to grant temporary permits and the delegation of any such power to him by the Regional Transport Authority was invalid. Regional Transport Authority is constituted under Section 44 of the Act. Sub-section (5) of Section 44 contemplates rules for the delegation of powers and functions by the Regional Transport Authority and State Transport Authority to such authority or person as may be prescribed by the rule.

Sub-section (5) of Section 44 runs as under:--

'The State Transport Authority and any Regional Transport Authority, if authorised in this behalf by rules made under Section 68, may delegate such of its powers and functions to such authority or person and subject to such restrictions, limitations and conditions as may be prescribed by the said rules.'

17. The State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 68 of the Act has framed Rule 44-A under notification dated 24th November. 1970 published in the U. P. Gazette dated 5th December, 1970. Under Rule 44-A Regional Transport Authority is authorised to delegate its functions by general or special resolution recorded in its proceedings subject to such conditions as may be specified in the resolution to its Secretary or to Assistant Regional Transport Officer. The R. T. A. is thus authorised to delegate its functions by general or special resolution recorded in its proceedings subject to such conditions as may be specified in the resolution to its Secretary or to Assistant Regional Transport Officer of the region concerned, all or any of its powers under Section 62 of the Act regarding the grant of temporary permits. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority, Meerut it has been asserted that on 28th January, 1971 the Regional Authority, Meerut adopted a resolution delegating its powers underSection 62 of the Act, to grant temporary permits to its Secretary subject to the condition that before the grant of any stage carriage temporary permit the matter should be referred to the Chairman also. Under the circumstances it is clear that the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority has been delegated the powers, exercisable by the Regional Transport Authority under Section 62 of the Act to grant temporary permits. The Secretary was, therefore, well within his jurisdiction to grant temporary permits to the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has. however, urged that the delegation is invalid as it contains a restriction on the power of the Secretary that before the grant of temporary stage carriage permit the matter shall be referred to the Chairman also. This contention is without any substance. Sub-section (5) of Section 44, of the Act itself provides that the delegation may be subject to such restrictions, limitations and conditions as may be prescribed by the rules. Rule 44-A also provides that the Regional Transport Authority may delegate its powers and functions with such restrictions or conditions which it may specify in its resolution. The Regional Transport Authority was, therefore, acting within its powers in placing restriction on the power of the Secretary in the matter of grant of temporary permits that before any such temporary stage carriage permit is granted, the Secretary shall refer the matter to the Chairman also. The delegation, in my opinion is legal and valid and the Secretary of the R. T. A. had jurisdiction to grant temporary permits.

18. Learned, Counsel for the petitioner has then urged that the impugned temporary permits have not been granted by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, but by the Chairman of the Regional Transport Authority, who had no authority in law to grant any temporary permit under Section 62 of the Act. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority in his counter-affidavit has asserted that he himself scrutinised and considered all the 51 applications received for the grant of temporary permits on the route in question. After scrutiny, and considering the case of each individual applicant, he found respondents Nos. 3 to 12 as the most suitable persons, he therefore, decided to grant temporary permits to them for a period of four months. He recorded his decision in a note and thereafter he sent the same for approval to the Chairman of the Regional Transport Authority. The Chairman approved the decision of the Secretary without any modification. The Secretary therafter granted temporarypermits and issued the same to respondents Nos. 3 to 12. It is, therefore, amply clear that the Secretary granted the temporary permits within the limits of the delegated authority, Commissioner had only approved the Secretary's proposal. The petitioner's contention to the contrary is without any substance.

19. Learned counsel for the petitioner has then urged that since the Regional Transport Authority had decided to open the route in question and had also fixed the limit of permits under Sub-section (3) of Section 47, there was no temporary need justifying grant of temporary permits therefore the powers under Section 62 of the Act have been exercised in an arbitrary manner. Regional Transport Authority is empowered to grant temporary stage carriage permit for a limited period not exceeding four months for the conveyance of passengers on special occasions such as fairs and religious gatherings or for purposes of seasonal requirement or to meet a particular temporary need or pending the decision of an application for the renewal of a permit. The learned counsel has urged that unless and until any of these four conditions are found to be present, the Regional Transport Authority or its Secretary exercising the delegated powers could, not grant temporary permits. The Secretary has not recorded any reasons justifying the grant of temporary permits. It is true that the power to grant temporary permits is exercisable only on the existence of conditions mentioned in the four sub-clauses of Sub-section (1) of Section 62. If none of those conditions are found to exist, no temporary permit under Section 62 can be granted, and, any temporary permit granted otherwise would be without jurisdiction. Section 62 does not require recording of reasons in the order itself for granting temporary permits. If the grant of temporary permit is challenged it is open to the Regional Transport Authority or its Secretary to place necessary facts and material before the court to show that there was necessity for the grant of temporary permit, as contemplated by Section 62 of the Act.

In the present case, the Secretary in his order granting temporary permit referred to the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority dated 5th & 6th April 1971, wherein the Regional Transport Authority had considered the representations received from public and the recommendations of the authorities concerned, and had come to the conclusion that there was need of the travelling public and in order to meet that need creation of a new route Muzaffarnagar-Budhana-Kurthal was necessary and, therefore, it created the route, fixed thestrength and classified it, as 'A' Class route. The Regional Transport Authority was, therefore, satisfied that there was need for the grant of permits on the route In question. The Secretary in his order further stated that as applications for the grant of permanent permits on the route in question had not been invited and since there was necessity for catering need of the travelling public, there was need for grant of temporary permits. I, have considered the question carefully and, I am of the opinion that the Secretary of the R. T. A. was satisfied that there was need for grant of permanent permit on the route in question since steps for the grant of permanent permits had not been taken there existed a temporary need to meet the requirement of the travelling public. When the Regional Transport Authority was not able to take necessary steps at an early date, to grant permanent permits, in respect of the new route for which it had already taken a decision to grant permanent permits there existed a temporary need. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since there was a permanent need, there could be no temporary need justifying the grant of temporary permit is devoid of any force. In the case of Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corpn. Bairagarh v. B. P. Upadhyaya, AIR 1966 SC 156 the Supreme Court while interpreting Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 62, held:

'This Sub-section, therefore, contemplates that there may exist a temporary need for transport facilities on a particular route even in case of permanent need for such facilities. We are accordingly of opinion that the Regional Transport Authority was right as a matter of law in granting a temporary permit to the appellant under Section 62 (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act in the circumstances of this case and the view expressed by the High Court is not correct.'

20. In the above case, Regional Transport Authority had granted temporary permits on a route in respect of which it had decided to grant permanent permits but it had not been able to take necessary steps for considering applications for grant of permanent permits. The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that temporary permits could not be granted when there was a permanent need for providing facilities on the route Specially so when the Regional Transport Authority had taken a decision to invite applications for that purpose. The Supreme Court, in appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and it upheld the order of the Regional Transport Authority granting temporary permits. The circumstances which existed in the Madhya Pradesh case are present in thepresent case also. The grant of temporary permits by the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority is, therefore, legal and valid.

21. No other point has been pressed before me. Since all the points raised by the petitioner have failed, the Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs.


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