Research › Browse › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

1976 DIGILAW 205 (KAR)

D. P. SHARMA v. SECRETARY, RTA, BANGALORE

1976-11-17

V.S.MALIMATH

body1976
( 1 ) THE petitioner is the owner of stage carriage vehicle No. MYA 7242. He has a stage carriage permit in respect of the said vehicle for the route bangalore to Villupuram. As the permit has not been countersigned by the transport Authorities in Tamil Nadu, the petitioner states that he has been operating only between Bangalore and Attibele State border. The petitioner made an application on 4-10-1976 to the respondent the Secretary, regional Transport Authority, Bangalore for grant of a special permit under sub-sec. (6) of S. 63 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the purpose of tour of the toxtrists for the period between 15-11-1976 and 22-11-1976. The respondent rejected the petitioner's application by his endorsement dated 7-10-1976 Ext. 'c'. The respondent has taken the view that having regard to the provisions of the Karnataka contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976, (Act 21 of 1976) (hereinafter referred to as the Acquisition Act), he is precluded from granting a special permit under sub-sec. (6) of S. 63 of the Act. It is the said endorsement that the petitioner has challenged in this WP and he has also prayed for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's application for grant of a special permit under sub-sec (6) of Section 63 of the Act and in accordance with law. ( 2 ) S. 51 of the Act provides for grant of contract carriage permits. Sub-sec (6) of S. 63 of the Act provides for grant of special permits. That the special permit contemplated by sub-sec (6) of S. 63 of the Act is different from the contract carriage permit granted under S. 51 of the Act is clear from the decision of this Court in SRMS Tourist Service Co. , v. Secretary rta (1975 7 Karlj 395 ). Justice Jagannatha Shetty has, after a detailed examination of the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules, held 'that the contract carriage permit cannot be equated with a special permit and that one is totally different from the other. , v. Secretary rta (1975 7 Karlj 395 ). Justice Jagannatha Shetty has, after a detailed examination of the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules, held 'that the contract carriage permit cannot be equated with a special permit and that one is totally different from the other. It was on the basis of the said decision that it was contended by Shri M. Rangaswamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the Acquisition Act onlv prohibits grant of contract carriage permits and not special permits under sub-sec (6) of S. 63 of the act and that therefore the view taken by the respondent is clearly erroneous. ( 3 ) THE respondent has relied upon S. 20 of the Acquisition Act, which reads as follows : 20. Corporation to have exclusive privilege of running any contract carriage - Notwithstanding anything in the Motor Vehicles Act, with effect on and from the notified date- (1) all contract carriage permits granted or renewed in respect of any vehicle other than a vehicle - (1) acquired under this Act; or (ii) belonging to the corporation; or (iii) referred to in S. 24, shall stand cancelled; (2) The corporation shall be entitled, subject to the provisions of s. 24, to the grant or renewal of contract carriage permits to the exclusion of all other persons; and (3) No officer or authority shall invite any application or entertain any such application of persons other than the corporation for the grant of permit for the running of any contract carriage. It is clear from this provision that on and from the notified date, all existing contract carriage permits, whether originally granted or renewed, in respect of any vehicle other than the vehicles acquired under the Acquisition act or belonging to the Corporation or referred to in S. 24, stand cancelled. This is the clear effect of sub-sec (1) of S. 20 of the Acquisition Act. As admittedly there was no contract carriage permit in respect of the petitioner's vehicle, the bar contained in sub-sec (1) of S. 20 of the Acquisition act is not attracted. Sub-sec (2) of 9. 20 provides that subject to the provisions of S. 24, it is only the Corporation that shall be entitled to the grant or renewal of contract carriage permits to the exclusion of all other persons. Sub-sec (2) of 9. 20 provides that subject to the provisions of S. 24, it is only the Corporation that shall be entitled to the grant or renewal of contract carriage permits to the exclusion of all other persons. As what the petitioner has sought is not a contract carriage permit but a special permit under S. 63 (6) of the Act, the question of infringing upon the exclusive privilege granted in favour of the Corporation under S. 20 (2) of the Acquisition Act does not arise in this case. Sub-sec (3) of S. 20 of the acquisition Act contains a mandate to the officers or authorities functioning under the Act not to invite any application or entertain any such application of persons other than the Corporation for the grant of permit for the running of any contract carriage. Having regard to the scheme of S. 20 and the purpose sought to be achieved by sub-sees (1) and (2) of the said provision, it is clear that sub-sec (3) of S. 20 is a provision made to make the provisions of sub-secs (1) and (2) more effective. What is prohibited by sub-sec (3) of S. 20 of the Acquisition Act is inviting or entertaining applications from persons other than the Corporation for grant of contract carriage permits. Though the expression "contract carriage permit" has not been employed in sub-sec (3) of S. 20, having regard to the definition of the word "permit" used in the said clause, it is clear that no officer or authority can invite or entertain applications for the grant of contract carriage permits. The word "permit" has been defined in S. 3 (m) of the Acquisition Act to mean the permit granted under the Motor Vehicles Act, authorising the use of a vehicle as a contract carriage. 9. 51 of the Act is the only appropriate provision under which permit can be granted for the use of the vehicle as a contract carriage. It is, therefore, clear that the word "permit" defined in s. 3 (m) of the Acquisition Act means the contract carriage permit contemplated by S. 51 of the Act. Therefore, what is prohibited by sub-sec (3) of s. 20 of the Acquisition Act is the inviting and entertaining of applications of persons other than the Corporation for grant of contract carriage permits. Therefore, what is prohibited by sub-sec (3) of s. 20 of the Acquisition Act is the inviting and entertaining of applications of persons other than the Corporation for grant of contract carriage permits. As alreadv stated, the permit contemplated by S. 63 (6) of the Act is quite different from the contract carriage permit contemplated by S. 51 of the act. Hence, the prohibition contained in sub-sec (3) of S. 20 is also not attracted to the facts of the present case. ( 4 ) IT was, however, maintained by Shri B. B. Mandappa, learned high Court Govt Pleader appearing for the respondent, that having regard to the definition of "contract carriage" in S. 3 (g) of the Acquisition Act, all public service vehicles in relation to which special permits have been issued under sub-sec (6) of S. 63 of the Act become contract carriages. Cl (g) of s. 3 of the Acquisition Act defines "contract carriage". It provides that it shall have the same meaning as in Cl (3) of S. 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act and includes among others a public service vehicles in relation to which a special permit has been issued under sub-sec (6) of 9. 63 of the Act. Even assuming for the sake of argument that a public service vehicle in relation to which a special permit has been issued under sub-sec (6) of S. 63 of the act comes within the definition of the expression "contract carriage" as defined in the Acquisition Act, I fail to see how advantage can be taken of the definition of the expression "contract carriage" given in S. 3 (g) of the acquisition Act by the learned High Court Govt Pleader. As already stated, the only prohibition in the Acquisition Act is that contained in S. 20 of the Act. I have analysed the said provision to demonstrate that the said provision does not bar the authorities from entertaining applications and granting special permits under S. 63 (6) of the Act. ( 5 ) THE only other provision relied upon by Shri Mandappa is S. 14 of the Acquisition Act which provides that no person shall on or after the commencement of the Act apply for any permit or fresh permit or for renewal of an existing permit for the running of any contract carriage in the state except as otherwise provided in the Acquisition Act. Sub-sec (2) deals with the pending applications in this behalf. The prohibition contained in sub-sec (1) is in regard to making applications for any permit or fresh permit or for renewal of an existing permit for the running of any contract carriage in the State. Permit as defined in S. 3 (m) of the Acquisition Act means, as already stated, permit granted under the Act authorising the use of a vehicle as a contract carriage, meaning thereby a contract carriage permit contemplated by S. 51 of the Act. S. 14 of the Acquisition Act cannot, therefore, be regarded as containing any prohibition in the matter of grant of special permits under sub-sec (6) of S. 63 of the Act. ( 6 ) AS there is no prohibition in the Acquisition Act for entertaining applications for grant of special permit under S. 63 (6) of the Act in respect of vehicles which are registered as stage carriages, this writ petition is entitled to succeed. ( 7 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned endorsement of the respondent is quashed and a writ in the nature of mandamus is issued to the respondent to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of special permit in accordance with law immediately. No costs. ( 8 ) SHRI B. B. Mandappa, learned High Court Govt Pleader, who appeared for the respondent as per the directions of this Court, is permitted to file his memo of appearance within two weeks. ( 9 ) LET a copy of this order be despatched to the respondent forth with. --- *** --- .