Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 632 (KER)

Komalam v. R. T. A. , Ernakulam

2001-11-06

R.RAJENDRA BABU

body2001
Judgment :- R. Rajendra Babu, J. Petitioner, who is operating his stage carriage bearing Reg. No. KBE 1911 on the route Fort Kochi-Eda Kochi, filed this petition for quashing Exts. P4 and P5 orders granting variation of the permit to the fourth respondent in respect of the vehicle KRF 7353. 2. The fourth respondent is operating his stage carriage bearing Reg. No. KRF 7353 on the route Kumbalangi-Mattacherry. He filed an application for variation of the permit so as to operate one trip as Kumbalangi-Kaloor (via) Menaka and another trip as Kumbalangi-Fort Kochi. The above application was rejected by the R.T.A., Ernakulam as per its proceedings dated 22.6.1999. The above order was challenged by the fourth respondent before the STAT in MVAA No. 498/99. By Ext. P4 order the STAT reversed the order of the RTA and directed to grant the variation and accordingly the RTA granted variation as per Ext. P5 order. The above orders are under challenge. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, fourth respondent and also the learned Government Pleader. 4. The application for variation of the permit filed by the fourth respondent was rejected by the R.T.A., Ernakulam as per Ext. P2 order, which reads: "Heard. Curtailment from Thoppumpady to Mattancherry will adversely affect the existing facility and no circumstances as per R.145(6) exists. Hence rejected". The above order was challenged by the fourth respondent before the S.T.A.T. The S.T.A.T. after considering the report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector, found that the variation was beneficial to the travelling public and as such the variation was allowable. It was observed in Ext. P4 order that the Motor Vehicle Inspector had reported that the proposed variation if allowed would be beneficial to the travelling public of Kumbalangi and Perumbadappu area and that the proposed curtailment portion was well served and would not affect the travelling public. The variation of the permit was granted by the Tribunal on the basis of the report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector that the variation would not affect any existing convenience to the travelling public, but that was advantageous to them. When there is such a finding that there is advantage to the travelling public, the variation has to be allowed and I find no reasons to interfere with the above order of the Tribunal. When there is such a finding that there is advantage to the travelling public, the variation has to be allowed and I find no reasons to interfere with the above order of the Tribunal. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner tried to assail the above finding of the Tribunal, no circumstances could be established to convince the above argument and as such Ext. P4 order of the Tribunal has to be upheld. On the basis of Ext. P4 order, the RTA reconsidered the application for variation of permit and granted the same by Ext. P5 order. 5. The main argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that by the proposed variation, there would be four termini and as per law there should not be more than two termini. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent submitted that the provisions of the statute as well as the Rules do not prohibit the issue of a permit having more than two termini and in fact the statute permit to have more than one route in a permit. Reliance was placed on Ss.70, 72 and 80 of the M.V. Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). S.70 of the Act deals with application for grant of regular permit. S.70(1) reads: "An application for a permit in respect of a stage carriage (in this Chapter referred to as a stage carriage permit) or as a reserve stage carriage shall, as far as may be, contain the following particulars, namely:-(a) the route or routes or the area or areas to which the application relates". S.72 relates to grant of stage carriage permits. S.72(2) reads: "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: (i) that the vehicles shall be used only in a specified area, or on a specified route or routes". S.80(3) which deals with variation of conditions of permit reads: "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. (i) in the case of variation, the termini shall not be altered and the distance covered by the variation shall not exceed twenty-four kilometers". The above provisions specifically mention regarding the grant of permit in respect of the 'routes' and thereby it is patent that a permit can be issued in respect of more than one route. Route has been defined under S.2(38) of the Act, which reads: "Route means a line of travel which specifies the highway which may be traversed by a motor vehicle between one terminus and another". In view of the above definition, a route should have two termini. In view of the above provisions under Ss.70(1), 72(2) and 80(3) of the Act a permit can be issued in respect of different routes and if that be so, there can be more termini than two. Hence, the above argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Vivek Dwivedi v. Prem Narain (AIR 1999 M.P.1). Hence, the above argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Vivek Dwivedi v. Prem Narain (AIR 1999 M.P.1). There the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, while considering whether a single application for the grant of permit in respect of two different routes, held: "Taking into consideration the various aspects referred to hereinabove, there can be no escape from the conclusion that a single application for the grant of a single permit for two different routes is not permissible or contemplated under the Act".It was further held: 'The provisions contained in S.70 of the Act, in our opinion, have to be interpreted not in a pedantic manner but taking into consideration the provisions contained in S.13 of the General.Clauses Act, 1897 which provides that in alt Central Acts and Regulations, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, words in the singular shall include the plural, and vice versa". The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the above decision can have application in the present ease and as such the permit can be only in respect of a route and it cannot be in respect of different routes. With great respect, I disagree with the approach made by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in importing the provisions of the General Clauses Act for interpreting the provisions in the statute. In fact, the legislature in its wisdom has used the word route as well as routes in three places under different context and by no stretch of imagination can it be held that the usage of the word 'routes' will have to be treated as route in the singular form. The facts of the above case have no similarity with the facts of this and hence, I do not intend to place reliance on the above decision. 6. The facts of the above case have no similarity with the facts of this and hence, I do not intend to place reliance on the above decision. 6. Another argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the Act contemplates only variation of the route and not variation of a trip and regarding the variation of the trip it can only be in the increase or decease in the number of trips and it cannot be in respect of variation of the trip.-Though such an argument was advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, he could not substantiate the above contention as the statute did not prohibit the variation of a trip. A trip has been defined in the explanation to S.70(1) of the Act as trip means a single journey from one point to another and every return journey shall be deemed to be a separate trip. It does not say that a trip should be from one terminal to the other. As per the above definition, a trip need not be from one terminal to another terminal and the variation as contemplated under S.80(3) of the Act can be in respect of a trip also. -When variation is granted, there can be a change in the trip without a change in the number of trips. The variation of a route can be in respect of a variation in the trip also and by no stretch of imagination can it be held that such variations are not contemplated by law. Sub-s.(3) of S.80 says that variation, extension or curtailment of routes or increase in the number of trips above the specified maximum will have to be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit. By the words "shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit" has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore v. B.A. Jayaram (AIR 1984 SC 790) as the procedure to be followed ill the case of an application made for the variation to be the same as in the case of procedure to be followed in the case of grant of a new permit. In fact the above contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner also cannot be accepted. Hence, this petition has only to be dismissed. In the result, this Original Petition is dismissed.