Skip to content


Ramachandran Vs. the Regional Transport Authority, Cannanore and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Case NumberO.P. No. 4832 of 1976
Judge
Reported inAIR1977Ker130
ActsMotor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 46 and 62(1)
AppellantRamachandran
RespondentThe Regional Transport Authority, Cannanore and ors.
Appellant Advocate V. Sivaraman Nair and; M. Krishnakumar, Advs.
Respondent Advocate P.V. Madhavan Nambiar and; N. Balaraman Pillai, Advs.
DispositionPetition allowed
Cases ReferredBalaji Motors v. R. T. A.
Excerpt:
- .....(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) for the conveyance of passengers on special occasions such as to and from fairs and religious gatherings, or (b) for the purposes of a seasonal business, or (c) to meet a particular temporary need, or (d) pending decision on an application for the renewal of a permit; and may attach to any such permit any condition it thinks fit: provided 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.....
Judgment:
ORDER

K.K. Narendran, J.

1. The short point that arises for consideration in this case is whether a Regional Transport Authority can grant a temporary permit even on the basis of a direction issued by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in a Motor Vehicles Appeal against the rejection of an application for a temporary permit by the Regional Transport Authority, when applications for a pucca permit on the same route submitted in response to a Notification inviting applications are pending, in view of the first proviso to Section 62 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, for short the Act. The application for the temporary permit was also submitted in response to an earlier Notification inviting applications for a temporary permit On the route.

2. In response to a Notification inviting applications for a temporary stage carriage permit on the route Thottummal-Edayilpoodika via Chondam, TellicherryNew Bus Stand, Saidappally and Madapeedika issued by the 1st respondent-Regional Transport Authority, Canna-nore the petitioner, the 3rd respondent and another operator submitted applications. But the first respondent at its meeting held on 25-6-1976 rejected all the applications and decided to invite applications for a pucca stage carriage permit on the route. Accordingly, Ext. P-l Notification under Section 57 (2) of the Act was published in the Kerala Gazette dated 10-8-1976. As per Ext. P-l Notification, the applications were to be submitted before 30-8-197,6. The petitioner and the 3rd respondent submitted applications in lime. The applications were notified under Section 57 (3) of the Act in the Kerala Gazette dated 5-10-1976 and Ext. P-2 is a copy of that Notification dated 3-9-1976. In the meanwhile, the 3rd respondent filed M. V. A. No. 183 of 1976 against the rejection of his application for temporary permit by the Regional Transport Authority on 25-6-1976 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal allowed that appeal by Ext. P-3 judgment dated 30-8-1976 with a direction to the 1st respondent-Regional Transport Authority to grant the temporary permit applied for. Accordingly, the 1st respondent by Ext. P-4 proceedings dated 24-9-1976 granted a temporary permit to the 3rd respondent. The petitioner challenges the above grant Ext. P-4 in this original petition.

3. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter-affidavit justifying the grant The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit also.

4. Shri V. Sivaraman Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that Ext. P-4 grant is hit by the first proviso to Section 62 (1) of the Act as the applications for a new permit on the very same route submitted in pursuance of Ext. P-l Notification were actually pending before the 1st respondent when the grant was made. Learned counsel further contends that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal ought not to have given a direction for the grant of a temporary permit by Ext. P-3 judgment because on 30-8-1976 when the judgment was pronounced applications for a new permit under Section 46 of the Act on the same route were pending. According to the learned counsel, even if a direction was made without knowing the pendency of the applications for the new permit the direction cannotbe sustained in view of the first proviso to Section 62 (1) of the Act. In support of his contentions learned counsel refers to P. C. Velayudhan v. C. L. Varkey (1966 Ker LT 347), Chacko Scaria v. Regional Transport Authority, Alleppey (1966 Ker LT 954 : AIR 1967 Ker 153) and P. K. Transport v. C. W. M. S. Ltd. (1967 Ker LT 650).

5. Shri P. V. Madhavan Nambiar, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent contends that a temporary need and a permanent need can co-pxist and hence there is nothing wrong in the direction contained in Ext. P-3 judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal even if applications for a pucca permit were pending then. In support of his contention learned counsel refers to M. P. S. R. T. Corporation v. Regional Transport Authority, (AIR 1966 SC 156) and T. P. Govindan v. Regional Transport Authority, 1972 Ker LT 242 : (AIR 1972 Ker 243). Learned counsel also contends that the petitioner cannot have any grievance against Ext. P-4 grant.

6-A. Shri V. Sivaraman Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the decision of the Supreme Court in M. P. S. R. T. Corporation v. R. T. Authority (AIR 1966 SC 156) is not applicable to the facts of this case as no application for a new permit was pending when the temporary permit in that case was issued. Learned counsel then refers to para. 5 of the judgment in T. P. Govin-dan's case, 1972 Ker LT 242 : (AIR 1972 Ker 2431 and contends that in that case also no application for a new permit was pending when the temporary permit was granted. Learned counsel also contends that the need as disclosed in Ext. P-3 judgment being not a temporary need the grant of the temporary permit by Ext. P-4 cannot be sustained for that reason also. In support of this contention reliance is placed on Balaji Motors v. R. T. A., Trichur (1975 Ker LT 602).

6. Section 62 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1939 reads:

'62. Temporary permits.-- (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) for the conveyance of passengers on special occasions such as to and from fairs and religious gatherings, or

(b) for the purposes of a seasonal business, or

(c) to meet a particular temporary need, or

(d) pending decision on an application for the renewal of a permit; and may attach to any such permit any condition it thinks fit:

Provided 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:

Provided further that a temporary permit under this section shall in no case, be granted more than once in respect of any route or area specified in an application for the renewal of a permit during the pendency of such application for renewal.'

A temporary permit can be granted in accordance with the provisions of the Act when there is a temporary need. Under certain circumstances a temporary need and a permanent need can co-exist also. Even then the grant of a temporary permit can be made only if it is possible under the Act. As per the first proviso to Section 62 (1) of the Act no temporary permit can be granted if an application for the grant of a new permit under Section 46 on the very same route is pending. In this case, applications for the grant of a new permit on the route were pending when the temporary permit was granted by the Regional Transport Authority as per the directions of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal is competent to give directions in the judgment disposing of an appeal. But no directions to make a grant in contravention of the provisions of the Act can be given. Even if such a direction comes, the Regional Transport Authority cannot implement the same because it can make a grant only in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In this case, there is nothing to show that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal was aware of the pendency of the applications for a new permit under Section 46 of the Act. Even in a case where the State Transport Appellate Tribunal comes to the conclusion that there was a temporary need and hence the rejection of an application for a temporary permit by the Regional Transport Authority was wrong, no direction for the grant of the temporary permit can be given if at the time of the disposal of the appeal an application for the grant of a new permit under Section 46 ispending before the Regional Transport Authority. It is also to be noted that if an applicant obtains a temporary permit and operates on the route during the pendency of applications for a new permit on the route that applicant will be stealing a march over others by that.

7. In the result, Ext. F-4 grant is set aside. The original petition is allowed as above. No costs.

Issue carbon copies of this judgment to counsel on both sides on payment of the usual charges.


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