Skip to content


T.P. Govindan Vs. the Regional Transport Authority, Cannanore and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Case NumberOriginal Petn. No. 50 of 1972
Judge
Reported inAIR1972Ker243
ActsMotor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 46, 54, 62 and 62(1)
AppellantT.P. Govindan
RespondentThe Regional Transport Authority, Cannanore and ors.
Appellant Advocate K. Neelakandan Menon and; P. Gopalakrishnan, Advs.
Respondent Advocate V. Bhaskaran Nambiar, Adv. and;Govt. Pleader
DispositionPetition allowed
Cases ReferredA. P. State Road Transport Corpn. v. K. Venkitaramireddy
Excerpt:
motor vehicles - temporary permit - section 62 (1) of motor vehicles act, 1939 - petition filed against grant of temporary permit - purpose must be indicated when person applies for issue of temporary permit - no reason for grant of permit indicated in application - there was no material before regional transport authority to assume particular need which might justify grant of permit - petition allowed. - - p-4 order is bad due to absence of considerations relevant in the matter of such a grant. 5. it is now well settled that temporary need can co-exist with a permanent need. held that such grant is bad......(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 seasonable 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. 9. the supreme court had occasion to consider the case of an applicant not indicating the relevant purpose for which the permit was sought and the grant of a temporary permit to such an applicant nevertheless......
Judgment:
ORDER

P. Subramonian Poti, J.

1. The challenge in this Original Petition is to the grant of a temporary permit by the Regional Transport Authority, Cannanore to run a service between Cannanore H. Q. Hospital and Azheekode. The grant is challenged as unwarranted by the provisions of Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which enables the grant of temporary permits,

2. At the meeting held on 21-12-1971 the first respondent considered as Item 10 fa) the question of the proposal for the introduction of & pucca stage carriage service on the route Cannanore H. Q. Hospital-Azhikkal and as Item 10 (b) the question of grant to euo motu applications for a temporary permit on the route Cannanore H. Q. Hospital-Azheekode for a period of four months. On the first of these, the Regional Transport Authority took the decision that a pucca service should be introduced on the route Cannanore H. Q. Hospital to Azhik-kal Ferry. On the question of issue of temporary permit on the Cannanore H. Q. Hospital to Azheekkode route itheld that temporary permit is to be granted to applicant No. 2, ''to meet the present rush of traffic.'

3. The route Cannanore H. Q. Hospital -- Azheekkode covers the greater part of the route Cannanore H. Q. Hos-pital-Azhikkal. Azhikode is a point between the Hospital and Azhikkal. Therefore, it was for a part of the route on which Regional Transport Authority decided to introduce a pucca service that the temporary permit has been granted.

4. It is said by the petitioner that the issue of a temporary permit for the part of a route for which consideration of a pucca permit has been decided upon was improper and is against the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is further argued that in any case the grant of temporary permit by Ext. P-4 order is bad due to absence of considerations relevant in the matter of such a grant.

5. It is now well settled that temporary need can co-exist with a permanent need. The mere fact that the Regional Transport Authority finds that there is justification for introduction of a pucca stage carriage service on a route may not debar the Regional Transport Authority from considering application for temporary service in the same route provided the considerations under Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act are shown to be present. The exception to this may be a case provided by the section itself. The first proviso to Section 62 (1) is relevant in this regard. It provides that-

'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 Sections 46 or 54 during the pendency of the application.' Of course this is not a case where there is any such application pending and therefore the proviso has no application to this case. Therefore, on that contention the petitioner cannot succeed.

6. What I have stated above Is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in M. P. S R. T. Corpn. v. R. T. Authority, AIR 1966 SC 156.

7. Time and again this court had occasion to tell the Regional Transport Authorities that they have a duty to pass speaking orders when issuing temporary permits under Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is not unusual to find grant of temporary permits apparently outside the scope of Section 62 of the Act either for the reason that the orders would not show any reason for the issue of the permit or because the reasons indicated are outside the purview of Section 62 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act,

8. When a person applies for the issue of a temporary permit in Form P. T. A. prescribed under Rule 175 (f) of the Motor Vehicles Rules, he has to indicate in answer to column 4 the purpose for which the permit is required. This is the basis for consideration of the application by the Regional Transport Authority. The Authority has to consider whether the purpose indicated is one which is relevant) and if it is, whether the Regional Transport Authority could find, on the merits, that such purpose is real. If it decides on these questions in favour of the applicant the permit may be granted provided the applicant is eligible and in case of contest, the most eligible. But in granting such permit, the authority has to indicate the reasons which weigh with it for finding in favour of the grant. Such reasons must be one or other of the reasons mentioned in Section 62 (1) of the Act. I think it is profitable to ex-tract here Section 62 (1).

'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) for the conveyance of passengers on special occasions such as to and from fairs and religious gatherings, or

(b) for the purposes of a seasonable 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.

9. The Supreme Court had occasion to consider the case of an applicant not indicating the relevant purpose for which the permit was sought and the grant of a temporary permit to such an applicant nevertheless. I am referring to the decision in A. P. State Road Transport Corpn. v. K. Venkitaramireddy, (1970) 1 SCWR 617. Dealing with this question the Supreme Court said thus:

'In the application which was filed by the appellant for grant of the tem-porary permits in Form 32 which has been prescribed with reference to Rule 126 (a) (vi) of the Rules no purpose has been indicated against Item No. 4 which requires the purposes to be indicated for which the stage carriage permit is required. A letter was addressed by the appellant to the Secretary. State Transport Authority, on August 24. 1966. Even in that letter the purpose of the reason for the issue of a temporary permit was not stated. In our opinion it b wholly futile to go into any of the points which were agitated before the learnedsingle Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court. There can be no manner of doubt that in the absence of any purpose or reason for which, temporary permits were asked for the Regional Transport Authority should have dismissed the application in limine because a temporary permit can be granted only If the permit is required for the purposes or reasons mentioned from (a) to (d) in Section 62 of the Act. In spite of every effort on the part of the learned counsel for the appellant to look for any document which would fulfil the requirement of a valid application under Section 62 nothing could be shown to us which would indicate the purpose for which the appellant asked for the grant of a temporary permit.'

In a case where the order does not indicate reasons for the grant of permit, my learned brother Isaac, J. held that such grant is bad. relying on the decision of the Supreme Court adverted to above. I am referring to the decision in O. E, No. 5285 of 1970 (Ker).

10. In the case before me the application for temporary permit filed by the 3rd respondent indicates as against column 4, the purpose for which it was being sought, as 'temporary permit'. This I verified from the file available with the Government Pleader. This certainly is not a reason for the grant of a permit. Therefore, there was no material before the Regional Transport Authority to assume a particular need which might justify the grant of the permit. Counsel for the 3rd respondent seeks to sustain the grant of permit by reference to Ext. B-4 order which mentions that the temporary permit was being granted 'to meet the present rush of traffic'. According to counsel, it is a temporary need.

11. It is necessary that the orders should indicate which one of the several clauses in Section 62 (1) would apply to the facts of a case. To refer to 'the present rush of traffic is certainly not to refer to a particular need. The mere qualification of the rush of the traffic as 'present' does not indicate that the rush of traffic is temporary or that there will not be continued rush of traffic in future. Apart from the fact that this is not the way the Regional Transport Authority is expected to speak, when what it is expected to speak about is the particular need, to uphold this order would be to accept the propriety of the Regional Transport Authority granting temporary permits without properly considering the existence of particular needs justifying such grant. That is likely to lead to abuse of the powers vested in the Regional Transport Authorities for the grant of such temporary permits. Therefore, Ido not .think that the order Ext. P-4 is an order which could be justified as being one of grant on the basis of one or other of the reasons indicated in Section 62 (1) of the Act. I therefore set aside Ext. P-4 order in so far as it concerns the grant of temporary permit to the 3rd respondent. This does not preclude the first respondent from properly considering any application for temporary permit if it decides upon entertaining applications for temporary permits.

12. The Original Petition is disposed of as above. NO costs.


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