M.S. Menon, J.
1. The petitioner applied for a renewalof the stage carriage permit issued in respect of his has, T. C. Q. 2651. The application was rejected by the Secretary of the Central Road Traffic Board (1st respondent) by an order dated 15-12-1956 on the ground that it was not filed within the time prescribed by Rule 195 of the Travancore-Cochin Motor Vehicles Rules, 1952.
2. It is clear from Rule 144 of the Travaucore-Cochin Motor Vehicles Rules, 1952, that the Central, Road Traffic. Board may delegate its power to deal with such an application to its Secretary and it is not disputed before me that the Central Road Traffic Board did, as a matter of fact, delegate the necessary power to the 1st respondent.
3. The petitioner took up the matter in appeal and Ext. A dated 6-1-1957 is the order of the District Judge of Trichur dismissing his appeal. Ext. A reads as follows.
'This, appeal has been preferred' against the order of the secretary, Central Road Traffic Board,dated 15-12-1956, rejecting the application of the appellant for the renewal of the Stage Carriage Permit in respect of T. C. Q. 2651.
2. The appeal was originally filed before the Central Road Traffic Board. Atter this Tribunal was constituted on 7-1-1956 to hear and dispose of appeal under Section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act, this appeal was transferred to this Tribunal.
3. The permit was valid till 6-1-1957. The application for renewal was filed only on 9-11-1956. The application was rejected on the ground that it was not filed within the time prescribed by rule 195 of the Travamcpre-Cochin Motor Vehicles Rules 1952. Hence the appeal.
4. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the order of the Secretary is contrary to law and facts and is opposed to the principles of natural justice. It is said that the delay in applying for the renewal being only 3 days and since that delay was occasioned by the illness of the appellant, the same should have been condoned by the Secretary. It is further argued that the Secretary, ought to have given the appellant an opportunity to adduce evidence relating to his illness.
5. Now on a perusal of the records I am constrained to say that I see no substance in the above contentions. Rules 195 is as follows:
Application for the renewal of a permit shall be made in Form P.R.A. to the Transport Authority, not less limn two mouths, in the case of a stage carnage permit or a public carrier's permit, and not less than one month in other cases, before the expiry of the permit, and shall be accompanied by Part A of the permit. The application shall state the period for which the renewal is desired and shall be accompanied by the fee prescribed in Rule 170. As already said the application was filed only on 9-11-1956. Thus there is a delay of 3 days in making the application. Therefore the Secretary was justified in rejecting the application on the ground of limitation. Nothing has been mentioned about the delay in the application for renewal of the permit or in the letter sent to the Secretary requesting the renewal of the permit. Therefore there is no point in the contention that the Secretary ought to have given the applicant an opportunity to adduce evidence regarding his illness.
In the absence of any averment regarding the illness or any other cause for condoning the delay in making the application, the Secretary 'cannot obviously be blamed in disposing of the application in the manner in which it was done. No doubt the appellant has produced a medical certificate before me to show that he was laid up with dysentery in Madras from 31-10-1950 to 3-11-1956. But I am not inclined to attach any importance to it, because as indicated above, the appellant has no such case when he applied for the renewal of the permit. In these circumstances, I see no ground for interference. The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed.'
4. The main contention urged before me is thatRule 195 is ultra vires of the provisions of the MotorVehicles Act, 1939.
5. Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, deals with 'Procedure in applying for and grantingpermits' and Sub-section (2) of that section providesthat:
'An application for a stage carriage permit or a public carrier's permit shall be made not less than six weeks before the date on which it is desired that the permit shall take effect'.
Section 58 deals with the 'Duration and renewal of permits' and Sub-section (2) of that section provides that :
'A permit may be renewed on an applicationmade and disposed of as if it were an applicationfor a permit.'
It follows that the period within which an application for renewal of a permit should be made under the Act is the period prescribed in Sub-section (2) of Section 57, i.e.
''not less than six weeks before the date on which it is desired that the permit shall take effect.'
6. Rule 193 (unlike the corresponding Madras Rule, 183 of the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940) enlarges this period to 'not less than two months in the case of a stage carriage permit or a public carrier's permit' and to that extent has to be considered as ultra vires and inoperative. The application for renewal filed by the petitioner on 9-11-1956 was certainly within the time prescribed by Section 57(2) of the Act, and Ex. A and the order of the 1st respondent dated 15-12-1956 rejecting the application on the ground that it was filed out of time cannot be sustained.
7. The Said orders are hereby quashed. Nocosts.