Research › Browse › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

1967 DIGILAW 59 (KER)

N. S. KURIAKOSE v. R. T. A, ERNAKULAM

1967-02-23

M.S.MENON, P.GOVINDA NAIR, T.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY IYER

body1967
Judgment :- 1. The appellant the petitioner in O. P. No. 439 of 1965 applied for a renewal of the stage carriage permit issued in respect of his vehicle: K.L.K. 2079. The application was "sanctioned" by the 1st respondent, the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam on the 14th February 1964. 2. The "sanction" of the application, however, was revoked by the said Authority on the 5th September 1964; and the appellant appealed to the 2nd respondent, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam. His appeal M.V.A. Appeal No. 204 of 1964 was held to be incompetent and dismissed on that account. The conclusion of the Tribunal has been accepted in the judgment under appeal; and the sole question for determination is whether the appeal to the Tribunal was competent as contended by the appellant. 3. It is settled law that a right of appeal is not a natural or inherent right, and that it does not exist unless expressly granted by a statute or rules having the force of a statute. The maximum that can be said in favour of an appellant is that in cases of doubt arising from the wording of a grant, he should be entitled to the benefit of that doubt. 4. S.64 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, deals with appeals. The maximum that can be said in favour of an appellant is that in cases of doubt arising from the wording of a grant, he should be entitled to the benefit of that doubt. 4. S.64 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, deals with appeals. It provides that: "Any person (a) aggrieved by the refusal of the State or a Regional Transport Authority to grant a permit, or by any condition attached to a permit granted to him, or (b) aggrieved by the revocation or suspension of the permit or by any variation of the conditions thereof, or (c) aggrieved by the refusal to transfer the permit to the person succeeding on the death of the holder of a permit, or (d) aggrieved by the refusal of the State or a Regional Transport Authority to countersign a permit, or by any condition attached to such counter signature, or (e) aggrieved by the refusal of renewal of a permit, or (f) being a local authority or police authority or an association which, or a person providing transport facilities who, having opposed the grant of a permit, is aggrieved by the grant thereof or by any condition attached thereto, or (g) aggrieved by the refusal to grant permission under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of S.59, or (h) aggrieved by a reduction under sub-section (1-A) of S.60 in the number of vehicles or routes or area covered by a permit, or (i) aggrieved by any other order which may be prescribed, may, within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, appeal to the prescribed authority who shall give such person and the original authority an opportunity of being heard." The contention of the appellant is that he is a person "aggrieved by the refusal of renewal of a permit" and that his appeal to the Tribunal was competent under S.64(e) of the Act. 5. We are inclined to accept the contention. The fact that the application for renewal was "sanctioned" in the first instance cannot affect the question. That "sanction" of the application for renewal was subsequently revoked and the fact remains that there has been a refusal of the renewal of the permit. 6. R.205 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1961, deals with the renewal of permits. The fact that the application for renewal was "sanctioned" in the first instance cannot affect the question. That "sanction" of the application for renewal was subsequently revoked and the fact remains that there has been a refusal of the renewal of the permit. 6. R.205 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1961, deals with the renewal of permits. Sub-rule (2) of that rule stipulates the form in which an application for the renewal of a permit should be made, and sub-rule (7) of that rule provides that the Transport Authority "sanctioning an application for renewal of a permit" may "revoke its sanction of the application for renewal" if the permit-holder fails to produce certain records within the time specified in that behalf. The revocation in this case on the 5th September 1964 of the "sanction" of the 14th February 1964 was in pursuance of sub-rule (7) of R.205. 7. Sub-rule (7) of R.205 also shows that the renewal of a permit is effected not by a mere "sanction" of the application for renewal but by an endorsement on the permit originally issued to an applicant. The wording of the endorsement to be made, as given in the form prescribed, is as follows: RENEWALS Permit No. P. S. P. This permit is hereby renewed up to the day of 19 subject to the following further conditions: State/ Regional Transport Authority. 8. In the case before us no endorsement of renewal has been made on the permit issued to the appellant. The refusal to make such an endorsement consequent on the revocation of the "sanction" of his application for renewal should amount to a refusal of renewal within the ambit of S.64 (e) of the Act. 9.It has to be noted, as pointed out in Ramnath Prasad v. State Transport Authority, A. I. R.1957 Patna 117, that S.64 does not speak of any "order" as the foundation for an appeal and that it speaks only in terms of a person aggrieved by a refusal, as for example, of the grant of a permit or of a renewal thereof. What the appellant wanted was a renewal of his permit. That renewal has been refused. He is certainly a person aggrieved by the refusal. And that should be sufficient to sustain his appeal under S.64 (e) of the Act. 10. What the appellant wanted was a renewal of his permit. That renewal has been refused. He is certainly a person aggrieved by the refusal. And that should be sufficient to sustain his appeal under S.64 (e) of the Act. 10. In the light of what is stated above this Writ Appeal has to be allowed. We do so ; but without any order as to costs. Allowed.