Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 23 (KER)

Sabu v. R. T. O. , Trivandrum

2000-01-12

S.SANKARASUBBAN

body2000
Judgment :- S. Sankarasubban, J. Petitioner is the registered owner of stage carriage KL.01/P.5353. The said vehicle is a tax paid vehicle and not covered with any permit. Another stage carriage bearing registration number KL-1/D.9875 was operating on the route attingal-vaikom. The said operator defaulted service and a vacancy thus arose. The route is an intra-district route. Petitioner, therefore, made an application for the grant of a substituted temporary permit for four months in respect of the petitioner's stage carriage KL.01/P.5353. Ext. PI is the application. In Ext. PI application, the petitioner pointed out that the temporary permit was in the substituted vacancy. Petitioner also pointed out that in view of the Sabrimala festival season, Christmas and Id-Ul-Fittar, there is temporary need. 2. Ext. PI application came for consideration before the Regional Transport Authority, Thiruvananthapuram. The Regional Transport Authority dismissed the application for temporary permit as follows: "Temporary need under S.87(1) not substantiated. Disallowed". Ext. P2 is the order. Against Ext. P2 order, the petitioner preferred Ext. P3 appeal, which was numbered as M.V.A.A. No. 841 of 1999. The appeal is pending before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam. Along with the appeal, petitioner preferred M.P. No. 2274 of 1999. In paragraph 3 of the affidavit accompanying the petition, the petitioner has stated thus: "The reason stated for rejection of the application is that there is no temporary need in existence. It is submitted that I have specifically pointed out before the first respondent that the application is in a surrendered vacancy. The Christmas season and Id-Ul-Fittar are in the offing in addition to the on going Sabrimala festival season. Hence, the impugned decision is liable to be set aside". Hence pending disposal of the appeal, petitioner applied for a temporary permit for 20 days in respect of the same route. The petition was moved before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal passed the following order: "Heard. The question whether the impugned order is not sustainable can be decided only after hearing the appeal. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant 20 days permit as prayed for". Copy of the order is produced as Ext. P5. Ext. P5 is challenged in this Original Petition. 3. The Appellate Tribunal passed the following order: "Heard. The question whether the impugned order is not sustainable can be decided only after hearing the appeal. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant 20 days permit as prayed for". Copy of the order is produced as Ext. P5. Ext. P5 is challenged in this Original Petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was not proper on the part of the Appellate Tribunal to state that only when the appeal is heard, it can be found out whether the need is proper or not. Learned counsel brought to my notice, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1988. These Rules came into force on the 1st day of February, 1988. It deals with the procedure in the State Transport Appellate Tribunal regarding the appeal or re vision petitions. R.10 of the above Rules deals with stay of suspension of the impugned order or order of direction. It is as follows: "10. Stay or suspension of the impugned order or order of direction: - No interim order shall be passed by the Tribunal unless the Tribunal is satisfied that a copy of such petition and affidavit, if any, is served on the standing counsel and if objected to, only after hearing the Standing Counsel and the petitioner. Provided that when the Tribunal is satisfied that an interim order is absolutely necessary in the circumstances of the case, it may pass such interim order to be effective for a period not exceeding fourteen days without hearing the Standing Counsel:" A reading of the above Rule shows that the Tribunal has got power to pass interim orders either in the nature of stay or suspension or order of direction. So far as the present case is concerned, there is no contesting respondent except the Regional Transport Authority, who has to be heard. There is a permanent Standing Counsel for the Regional Transport Authority in the Tribunal. In the case of temporary permits, circumstances may arise when there may be absolute necessity to grant permits. So far as the present case is concerned, the definite case of the petitioner is that the application was made in a vacancy caused by the default and the Tribunal could have easily verified this aspect from the counsel for the Regional Transport Authority and passed appropriate orders. So far as the present case is concerned, the definite case of the petitioner is that the application was made in a vacancy caused by the default and the Tribunal could have easily verified this aspect from the counsel for the Regional Transport Authority and passed appropriate orders. It was not proper on the part of the Tribunal to defer the entire matter till the final hearing. If from the materials produced, the Tribunal is satisfied, then it has got power to give directions. 4. A similar question arose before this Court in the decision reported Mayilvahanam Travels v. R.T.A. Malappuram,1985 KLT 178. There the State Transport Appellate Authority granted an interim order for 20 days. That order was challenged in the Original Petition. There, as a matter of fact, the Tribunal passed an ex parte order and the order given as an interim relief virtually amounted to allowing the appeal. There the order passed by the Tribunal was on the ground on which the relief was prayed for before the Regional Transport Authority. Of course, that was at a time when the above Rules had not been framed. Further, in the present case, the relief prayed for is only for the grant of 20 days permit before the Tribunal, whereas the relief prayed for before the Regional Transport Authority was for four months permit. 5. Hence, I set aside Ext. P5 order and direct the Tribunal to consider and dispose of Ext. P4 application afresh within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Original Petition is disposed of as above.