Skip to content


D. Devaraja Iyer Vs. R.T.A. Trichur - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Case NumberO.P. No. 33 of 1960
Judge
Reported inAIR1961Ker53
ActsMotor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 48 and 64; Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1956
AppellantD. Devaraja Iyer
RespondentR.T.A. Trichur
Appellant Advocate K.K. Mathew,; George Vadakkel and; M.A. Joseph, Advs
Respondent Advocate Govt. pleader for Respondent Nos 1 and 2 and; S. Narayanan Potti and Sivaraman Nair, Advs. for 3rd Re
DispositionPetition dismissed
Cases ReferredHeeralal v. State of Rajasthan
Excerpt:
- .....prohibited from operating his stage carriage via amballur to kallur. he preferred an appeal to the state transport appellate tribunal against ext. p3 without impleading the petitioner, and obtained an order staying the operation of ext. p3. this petition has been filed to quash the above order, as having been made without jurisdiction, as, according to the petitioner, no appeal lay to the state transport appellate tribunal against ext. p3 under the provisions of section 64 of the act. the only question canvassed before me in this petition was whether an appeal lay to the state transport appellate tribunal.2. counsel were agreed before me, that the appeal against ext. p3 can be maintained, if at all, only under clause (b) of section 64 of the act, as ordering a variation of a condition of.....
Judgment:
ORDER

S. Veelu Pillai, J.

1. The petitioner was operating a stage carriage between Trichur and Kallur via Ollur Junction, Trikkur Bridge, Muttan's Corner and Pilliyara. The 3rd respondent was operating two stage carriages between Trichur and Trikkur via Ollur Junction; he has a case, that for one of the stage carriages, ho had a permit up to Muttan's Corner and for the other up to Ponnukara on the north of Pallivara, but this controversy is immaterial for the disposal of this petition.

When the road from Muttan's Corner to Kallur was declared unfit for traffic, the Regional Transport Authority, Trichur, by order Ext. P2, dated December 18, 1959, permitted, the petitioner to operate his stage carriage, and also the third respondent to operate one of his stage carriages, between Trichur and Kallur via Ollur Junction and Amballur. This was without following the procedure prescribed by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, or simply the Act, for effecting variations in the conditions of the permit or for the issuing of new permits.

On representations being made against Ext. P2, the Regional Transport Authority modified it by Ext. P3 dated December, 29, 1959, by which, the third respondent was prohibited from operating his stage carriage via Amballur to Kallur. He preferred an appeal to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal against Ext. P3 without impleading the petitioner, and obtained an order staying the operation of Ext. P3. This petition has been filed to quash the above order, as having been made without jurisdiction, as, according to the petitioner, no appeal lay to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal against Ext. P3 under the provisions of Section 64 of the Act. The only question canvassed before me in this petition was whether an appeal lay to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal.

2. Counsel were agreed before me, that the appeal against Ext. P3 can be maintained, if at all, only under Clause (b) of Section 64 of the Act, as ordering a variation of a condition of the permit. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner Section 48 of the Act is exhaustive of the conditions of a permit, a variation of any of which, will come within the scope of Section 64 (b), and that the variation of a route or routes covered by a permit being not specifically mentioned in Section 48, cannot be deemed to be a condition of the permit.

The question in the last analysis is, therefore, whether a route or routes covered by a permit, is a condition of the permit. Whatever arguments might have been open before, since the passing of the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act, 100 of 1956, there is no room for any doubt, as by Sub-section (8) of Section 57, the inclusion of a new route or routes is treated as a variation of the condition of the permit, for it reads :

'An application to vary the conditions of any permit other than a temporary permit, by the inclusion of a new route or routes .......... shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit.'

A Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court consisting of Wanchoo, C. J., as he then was, and Modi, J., in Heeralal v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1959 Raj 41, has observed thus, with respect to this provision :

'Having regard to this language, it is impossible, in our opinion, to hold, that a provision as to a specific route or area in the permit is not one of its conditions ........'

I therefore hold, that the variation by Ext. P3, of the route in the original permit held by the third respondent as modified by Ext. P2, is a variation in a condition of the permit within the meaning of Section 64 (b) of the Act, and is open to appeal. In this view, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the order staying the proceedings was made without jurisdiction. It is true that the petitioner, who is vitally interested in opposing the appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal has not been impleaded as a party by the third respondent.

It is however open to the petitioner to make a suitable application to the Tribunal for his impleadment, if he is so advised. No other point arises in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed, but without costs.


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