Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 420 (KER)

Muktha V Rai v. Nageswar Rao

2000-08-10

KURIAN JOSEPH, P.K.IYER BALASUBRAMANYAN

body2000
JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph, J. 1. An interesting question regarding the meaning and purport of "distance", "extension" and "variation" appearing in S.80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 arises for consideration in these Writ Appeals. The appellants have been granted variation of the condition of their permits by the inclusion of a new area. They are inter state stage carriage operators having granted permits originally to operate between Mangalore and Dharmathadka via. Bandiyode. Subsequently, they sought for variation in the condition of the permits by including a variation from Bandiyode to Kasargod and back to Bandiyode and then proceed to Dharmathadka. The distance from Bandiyode to Kasaragod is only 18 KMs. and on that ground the variation was granted by the Karnataka Authority which was counter signed by the Kerala Authority. Aggrieved party respondents challenged the same before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal which did not interfere with the matter. Thus aggrieved, they filed the Original Petitions. 2. The learned Single Judge who interpreted Clause. (ii) of the second proviso to S.80(3) of the Act was of the view that the variation in the conditions of the permits in these cases was 'extension'. It was also observed that the route Mangalore - Dharmathadka by the extension takes in three termini and that the extension is of more than 24 KMs. In that view of the matter the impugned orders passed by the State Transport Authority as also the State Transport Appellate Tribunal were quashed. Hence the present Writ Appeals by the aggrieved respondents. 3. In that view of the matter the impugned orders passed by the State Transport Authority as also the State Transport Appellate Tribunal were quashed. Hence the present Writ Appeals by the aggrieved respondents. 3. Sub-s.(3) of S.80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as follows: "(3) An application to vary the conditions of any permit, other than a temporary permit, by the inclusion of a new route or routes or a new area or by altering the route or routes or area covered by it, or in the case of a stage carriage permit by increasing the number of trips above the specified maximum or by the variation, extension or curtailment of the route or routes or the area specified in the permit shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit: Provided that it shall not be necessary so to treat an application made by the holder of stage carriage permit who provides the only service on any route to increase the frequency of the service so provided without any increase in the number of vehicles: Provided further that, (i) in the case of variation, the termini shall not be altered and the distance covered by the variation shall not exceed twenty four kilometres; (ii) in the case of extension, the distance covered by extension shall not exceed twenty four kilometres from the termini, and any such variation or extension within such limits shall be made only after the transport authority is satisfied that such variation will serve the convenience of the public and that it is not expedient to grant a separate permit in respect of the original route as so varied or extended or any part thereof." A close reading of the said sub-section makes it clear that it contemplated variation of the conditions of any permit other than a temporary permit, in the case of stage carriages, 1) by variation; 2) by extension; and 3) by curtailment of the route/routes or areas specified in the permit, and such applications would be treated as applications for the grant of new permits. The second proviso to the said sub-section lays down that in the case of variation, the termini shall not be altered and the distance covered by the variation shall not exceed 24 KMs; however, in the case of extension the only restriction is that the distance covered by extension should not exceed 24 KMs. from the termini and in either case, the convenience of the travelling public and inexpediency in granting a new permit should be the relevant factors upon which the authority has to be satisfied. The learned single Judge took the view that the present case is one of extension. However, it may be noted that neither of the termini, i.e. Mangalore or Dharmathadka, is altered and the extension is not from any of the termini. In between Mangalore and Dharmathadka, at the point Bandiyode, the stage carriage takes a deviation to Kasaragod, 18 KMs away, comes back and joins the same place (Bandiyode) and then proceeds to Dharmathadka. With great respect, we are unable to agree with the learned Single Judge that it is a case of extension. It is a case of variation. 4. The learned single Judge, however, on the basis that it is a case of extension, found that the distance covered by the variation is evidently 36 KMs. and being in excess of the permitted 24 KMs., quashed the orders of the State Transport Authority and the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. It may be noted that the distance is explained in the second proviso to S.80(3) as "distance covered by the variation". Obviously, going from Bandiyode to Kasaragod and coming back to Bandiyode, the distance covered by the variation is more than 24 KMs. It is also fruitful to refer to S.72(2)(xxii) empowering the Regional Transport Authority to vary the conditions of a permit which reads as follows: "(2) The Regional Transport Authority, if it decides to grant a stage carriage permit, may grant the permit for a stage carriage of a specified description and may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, attach to the permit any one or more of the following conditions, namely: xxx xxx xxx (xxii) that the Regional Transport Authority may, after giving notice of not less than one month, - (a) vary the conditions of the permit; (b) attach to the permit further conditions: Provided that the conditions specified in pursuance of Clause. (i) shall not be varied so as to alter the distance covered by the original route by more than 24 kilometres, and any variation within such limits shall be made only after the Regional Transport Authority is satisfied that such variation will serve the convenience of the public and that it is not expedient to grant a separate permit in respect of the original route as so varied or any part thereof;" Thus, it is a case of variation of the conditions of the permit which has the effect of covering the distance by more than 24 KMs. and in that view the learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in quashing the orders passed by the State Transport Authority and the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. We do not propose to interfere with the judgment. The Writ Appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed. JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph, J. 1. An interesting question regarding the meaning and purport of "distance", "extension" and "variation" appearing in S.80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 arises for consideration in these Writ Appeals. The appellants have been granted variation of the condition of their permits by the inclusion of a new area. They are inter state stage carriage operators having granted permits originally to operate between Mangalore and Dharmathadka via. Bandiyode. Subsequently, they sought for variation in the condition of the permits by including a variation from Bandiyode to Kasargod and back to Bandiyode and then proceed to Dharmathadka. The distance from Bandiyode to Kasaragod is only 18 KMs. and on that ground the variation was granted by the Karnataka Authority which was counter signed by the Kerala Authority. Aggrieved party respondents challenged the same before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal which did not interfere with the matter. Thus aggrieved, they filed the Original Petitions. 2. The learned Single Judge who interpreted Clause. (ii) of the second proviso to S.80(3) of the Act was of the view that the variation in the conditions of the permits in these cases was 'extension'. It was also observed that the route Mangalore - Dharmathadka by the extension takes in three termini and that the extension is of more than 24 KMs. In that view of the matter the impugned orders passed by the State Transport Authority as also the State Transport Appellate Tribunal were quashed. Hence the present Writ Appeals by the aggrieved respondents. 3. In that view of the matter the impugned orders passed by the State Transport Authority as also the State Transport Appellate Tribunal were quashed. Hence the present Writ Appeals by the aggrieved respondents. 3. Sub-s.(3) of S.80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as follows: "(3) An application to vary the conditions of any permit, other than a temporary permit, by the inclusion of a new route or routes or a new area or by altering the route or routes or area covered by it, or in the case of a stage carriage permit by increasing the number of trips above the specified maximum or by the variation, extension or curtailment of the route or routes or the area specified in the permit shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit: Provided that it shall not be necessary so to treat an application made by the holder of stage carriage permit who provides the only service on any route to increase the frequency of the service so provided without any increase in the number of vehicles: Provided further that, (i) in the case of variation, the termini shall not be altered and the distance covered by the variation shall not exceed twenty four kilometres; (ii) in the case of extension, the distance covered by extension shall not exceed twenty four kilometres from the termini, and any such variation or extension within such limits shall be made only after the transport authority is satisfied that such variation will serve the convenience of the public and that it is not expedient to grant a separate permit in respect of the original route as so varied or extended or any part thereof." A close reading of the said sub-section makes it clear that it contemplated variation of the conditions of any permit other than a temporary permit, in the case of stage carriages, 1) by variation; 2) by extension; and 3) by curtailment of the route/routes or areas specified in the permit, and such applications would be treated as applications for the grant of new permits. The second proviso to the said sub-section lays down that in the case of variation, the termini shall not be altered and the distance covered by the variation shall not exceed 24 KMs; however, in the case of extension the only restriction is that the distance covered by extension should not exceed 24 KMs. from the termini and in either case, the convenience of the travelling public and inexpediency in granting a new permit should be the relevant factors upon which the authority has to be satisfied. The learned single Judge took the view that the present case is one of extension. However, it may be noted that neither of the termini, i.e. Mangalore or Dharmathadka, is altered and the extension is not from any of the termini. In between Mangalore and Dharmathadka, at the point Bandiyode, the stage carriage takes a deviation to Kasaragod, 18 KMs away, comes back and joins the same place (Bandiyode) and then proceeds to Dharmathadka. With great respect, we are unable to agree with the learned Single Judge that it is a case of extension. It is a case of variation. 4. The learned single Judge, however, on the basis that it is a case of extension, found that the distance covered by the variation is evidently 36 KMs. and being in excess of the permitted 24 KMs., quashed the orders of the State Transport Authority and the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. It may be noted that the distance is explained in the second proviso to S.80(3) as "distance covered by the variation". Obviously, going from Bandiyode to Kasaragod and coming back to Bandiyode, the distance covered by the variation is more than 24 KMs. It is also fruitful to refer to S.72(2)(xxii) empowering the Regional Transport Authority to vary the conditions of a permit which reads as follows: "(2) The Regional Transport Authority, if it decides to grant a stage carriage permit, may grant the permit for a stage carriage of a specified description and may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, attach to the permit any one or more of the following conditions, namely: xxx xxx xxx (xxii) that the Regional Transport Authority may, after giving notice of not less than one month, - (a) vary the conditions of the permit; (b) attach to the permit further conditions: Provided that the conditions specified in pursuance of Clause. (i) shall not be varied so as to alter the distance covered by the original route by more than 24 kilometres, and any variation within such limits shall be made only after the Regional Transport Authority is satisfied that such variation will serve the convenience of the public and that it is not expedient to grant a separate permit in respect of the original route as so varied or any part thereof;" Thus, it is a case of variation of the conditions of the permit which has the effect of covering the distance by more than 24 KMs. and in that view the learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in quashing the orders passed by the State Transport Authority and the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. We do not propose to interfere with the judgment. The Writ Appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed.