Research › Browse › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

1988 DIGILAW 284 (KER)

Rugmini Amma v. R. T. A. Palghat

1988-06-30

G.VISWANATHA.IYER

body1988
Judgment :- 1. Petitioner is a stage carriage operator, operating on various routes in the Trichur, Palghat and Malappuram Districts. She. is inter alia operating on the route Guruvayur - Meenakshipuram with a vehicle KRH 7434. 2. The third respondent is operating a stage carriage KLG 5538 on a pucca permit on the route Guruvayur-Vellinezhi. He applied for variation of the permit by extending the service from Vellinezhi to Palghat. When the proposal was notified, petitioner objected on various grounds, which it is not necessary to state for the purpose of this original petition. The Regional Transport Authority considered the matter and approved the proposal by the proceedings Ext. P1 dated March 27,1987. The petitioner filed revision petition M.V.A.R.P.No.233 of 1987 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, challenging Ext.P1. Subsequently, the Regional Transport Authority granted regular variation of the third respondent's permit extending the route upto Palghat by the proceedings Ext.P2, which was also taken up in revision as M.V.A.R.P.NO.769 of 1987. Both these revision petitions are pending. Petitioner moved for stay of operation of the regular variation by Ext.P2 and the Tribunal stayed the operation of Ext.P2, pending the revision petition M.V.A.R.P.NO.769 of 1987. The third respondent could not therefore, operate on the extended portion of the route from Vellinezhi to Palghat despite the proceedings Ext.P2. 3. On receipt of the order of stay, the petitioner made representation to the Secretary to the Regional Transport Authority, namely the second respondent intimating him about the order of stay and requesting that the temporary permit which had been granted to the 3rd respondent to conduct service on the varied portion of the route be cancelled. A copy of the representation in Ext.P3. But what the Secretary did was to issue a further 20 days' short term temporary permit to the 3rd respondent on 21-5-1988 to conduct service on the varied portion of the route. He justified his action by referring to S.62(2)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (the Act). A copy of the second respondent's communication in this regard is Ext.P.4. Petitioner challenges Ext.P4 with the submission that S.62(2)(i) applies only when the operation of the permit for the entire route, issued under S.48, is stayed, and not when the operation of the permit over a portion alone is stayed. 4. A copy of the second respondent's communication in this regard is Ext.P.4. Petitioner challenges Ext.P4 with the submission that S.62(2)(i) applies only when the operation of the permit for the entire route, issued under S.48, is stayed, and not when the operation of the permit over a portion alone is stayed. 4. Having heard counsel for the petitioner, and counsel for the 3rd respondent, I am unable to accept the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. S.62(2)(i) reads: "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) a temporary permit may be granted thereunder in respect of any route or area where, (i) no permit could be issued under S.48 or S.52 or S.54 in respect of that route or area by reason of an order of a court or other competent authority restraining the issue of the same, for a period not exceeding the period for which the issue of the permit has been so restrained." The provision sanctions the grant of a temporary permit when no permit could be issued in respect of that route or area by reason of an order of a Court or other competent authority restraining the issue of the same. It is an exception to sub-section (1) and applies notwithstanding anything contained therein. In otherwords, permit could be granted under this section even if it cannot be issued under the general provisions of sub section (1). The section does not speak of an entire route or an entire area. It does not specify that the stay which restains the issue of the permit should be in respect of the entire route or area. What it requires is only that a permit under S.48 cannot be issued in respect of that route or area. The purpose of the provision is to enable temporary permits to be issued under S.62(1) over a route though the grant of the regular permit stands stayed by a court or competent authority. The provision is intended to meet a situation where a route or area which is sought to be covered by a regular permit is deprived of the service by virtue of an order of stay from a court or Tribunal. The need of the travelling public should not be jeopardised or be affected by the operation of the order of stay and therefore, a temporary permit is allowed to be granted, notwithstanding the provisions of sub sect ion (1). The need of the travelling public should not be jeopardised or be affected by the operation of the order of stay and therefore, a temporary permit is allowed to be granted, notwithstanding the provisions of sub sect ion (1). That route can take in even a portion of the route to which the permit gets extended by virtue of the provisions of S.57(8) of the Act. Therefore, a temporary permit could be granted over the extended portion, under S.62(2)(i). 5. When the R.T. A. has found the necessity for variation of the route by extension from Vellinezhi to Palghat, but that extension could not become effective because of the stay, the Authority is vested with the power under S.62(2)(i) to grant temporary permit for the extended route. The fact that the regular permit for the route from Guruvayur to Vellinezhi is still operating and is not stayed does not preclude the grant of a temporary permit for the extended portion. It is the permit over the extended portion that stands stayed and this is the only requirement of S.62(2)(i). 6. Petitioner relies on the decision in Shiv Chand Amolak Chand v. Regional Transport Authority, AIR 1984 SC.9, and K.S.R.T.C. Bangalore v. B.A. Jayaram, AIR 1984 SC.790 to contend that the variation of a permit does not give rise to a new permit. It is so, but S.62(2)(i) is not confined to cases of regular permit on entire routes. If that be so, the grant of the temporary permit is perfectly justified and Ext.P4 states the position of law correctly. There is no reason to interfere with the order Ext.P4. The original petition is dismissed. Issue carbon copy on usual terms.