Research › Browse › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

1993 DIGILAW 555 (KER)

Vijayakumar v. R. T. O. , Trichur

1993-12-03

P.K.BALASUBRAMANYAN

body1993
Judgment :- Heard counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader on- behalf of the respondent. 2. Under the proceedings Ext. P1, the petitioner was granted a perm it on the route Chavakkad-Thrissur. The vehicle offered by the petitioner was KL-8/B 4747 or a suitable vehicle. It appears that the petitioner had also applied for the grant of a permit on the route Thrissur-Guruvayur. In the said application also the petitioner had offered the vehicle KL-8/B 4747 or a suitable vehicle. The petitioner's case is that both the permits were granted and the petitioner got the permit issued for the route Thrissur -Guruvayur by offering the vehicle KL-8/B 4747 and the petitioner is operating on the route with the said bus. 3. Pursuant to Ext. P1 granted on the route Chavakkad - Thrissur, the petitioner could not offer the vehicle KL-8/B 4747. The petitioner therefore made an application Ext. P2 pointing out that the vehicle KL-8/B 4747 has been put on the route Thrissur-Guruvayur and that he may be permitted to put the bus KRH 900 on the route and the permit may be granted in respect of that bus. He also made a request that the maximum time allowable under law may be granted for production of the current records of the vehicle KRH 900 for issuing the permit pursuant to Ext. P1 grant. Subsequently on 26-11-1993 the petitioner made an application Ext. P3 submitting that he was producing the current records of KRH 900 and praying that the permit granted under Ext. P1 may be issued to the petitioner in respect of KRH 900. It has to be noted here that the grant under Ext. P1 was on 4-9-1993, the application Ext. P2 was made on 8-11-1993 and the application Ext. P3 was made on 26-11-1993. It can also be noted that while making the grant under Ext. P1, the Regional Transport Authority also directed the petitioner to produce the current records of the vehicle within one month from the, date of sanction of that order and said that on failure to do so, the sanction is liable to be revoked. This direction by the Regional Transport Authority was obviously in terms of R.159(2) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. 4. This direction by the Regional Transport Authority was obviously in terms of R.159(2) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. 4. Rule 159 (2) of the Rules clearly provides that in a case where the applicant or the grantee is not in possession of a duly registered vehicle, the applicant shall within one month of the sanctioning of the application by the Regional Transport Authority or such longer period of periods not exceeding four months in the aggregate as the Authority may specify, produce the certificate of registration of the vehicle before that Authority so that the particulars of the registration mark may be entered in the permit. It also provides that on the applicant failing to produce the certificate of registration within the period specified by the Transport Authority, the authority may revoke its sanction of the application. In this case, without a further order on the application Ext. P2 by the Regional Transport Authority, obviously the authority will be entitled to revoke the grant made under Ext. P1. 5. It therefore appears to me that the petitioner has first to get the application Ext. P2 disposed of by the Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur before he could insist on the issuance of a permit. In my view, therefore there could straight away be no direction to the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority based on Ext. P1 in respect of the vehicle referred to in Ext. P3 straightaway. It is therefore not possible for this court to issue the direction prayed for by the petitioner in this Original Petition. 11 will be first necessary for the Regional Transport Authority to consider and dispose of the application Ext. P2 since going by the order Ext. P1 and R.159(2) of the Rules, the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority cannot issue the permit as requested for in Ext. P3. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application Ext. P2 for extension of time for producing the certificate of registration of the concerned vehicle can be disposed of by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority under the delegated powers under R.133 of the Rules and in the light of R.159(3) of the Rules. I am afraid that this contention cannot be accepted. P2 for extension of time for producing the certificate of registration of the concerned vehicle can be disposed of by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority under the delegated powers under R.133 of the Rules and in the light of R.159(3) of the Rules. I am afraid that this contention cannot be accepted. R.159(3) reads thus: "The power vested in a Transport Authority under sub-rule (2) shall also be exercised by its delegate in respect of orders passed under the delegated powers." (emphasise supplied) No doubt, under R.133(1)(a), the power under Ss.71 and 72 of the Act to grant but not to refuse a stage carriage permit can be delegated to the Secretary in the circumstances specified therein. Obviously, in this case, the right to grant the permit has been exercised by the Regional Transport Authority and not by the delegate, the Secretary, in terms of R.133(1)(a) of the Rules. It was not contended before me that the power to grant a permit has also been delegated by the Regional Transport Authority to the Secretary in this instance. Therefore it is clear that the permit had been granted in this case not by the delegate but by the original authority itself. In such case, in my view R. 159(3) of the Rules cannot apply to confer a power on the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority to deal with the application Ext. P2, the application for extension of time in terms of R.159(2) of the Rules. In terms of R.159(2), the power can be exercised by the Secretary only when the original grant itself is made by the Secretary in terms of the power delegated to him under R.133(1)(a) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. I am therefore of the view that there is no authority on the respondent, the Secretary to deal with or to take a decision on the application Ext. P2. 7. The learned Government Pleader points out that since the Regional Transport Authority is not a party to this Original Petition, all that is required to be done is to dismiss the Original Petition. In the view this court has taken on the question, I do not think that it is proper to reject this Original Petition on that ground. No doubt, the petitioner ought to have impleaded the Regional Transport Authority also in this Original Petition. In the view this court has taken on the question, I do not think that it is proper to reject this Original Petition on that ground. No doubt, the petitioner ought to have impleaded the Regional Transport Authority also in this Original Petition. But considering the circumstances of the case, I think that the proper course to follow is to direct the Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur to consider the application Ext. P2 on merits and dispose of the same in accordance with law. In case the Regional Transport Authority grants extension, the further proceedings pursuant to Ext. P3 can be completed by the respondent herein for the issuance of the permit. Of course, if the extension is not granted by the Regional Transport Authority, there is no question of the respondent herein doing anything pursuant to the request Ext. P3. In the result, this Original Petition is disposed of by directing the Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur to consider and dispose of the application Ext. P2 as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within six weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Issue photo copy on usual terms.