Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 652 (KER)

C. A. M. Transport v. R. T. A. , Palakkad

2001-11-15

R.RAJENDRA BABU

body2001
Judgment :- R. Rajendra Babu, J. Whether a permit can be issued in respect of more than one route with more than two termini is the main question for consideration. 2. The facts of the case are as follows: M/s. C.A.M. Transport, Shornur, the petitioner firm, was operating stage carriage vehicles on different routes and on the route Cherplasserry - Valancherry they were operating their stage carriage bearing No. KL-G/5185. The above route was an inter-district one and the renewed permit was valid upto 12.7.2004. The 4th respondent was operating on the strength of a regular permit in respect of his stage carriage vehicle KL-9/F 6084 on the route Mappattukavu-Guruvayur. It was alleged that the 4th respondent applied for regular variation of the permit curtailing the portion from Mulayankavu to Meleppattambi for a distance of 12.5 kms. and also to deviate from Meleppattambi to Mulayankavu via. Vallappuzha, Pengatri, Cherplasserry and Kulakkallur covering a distance of 29 kms. and altogether the variation would come to 41.5 kms. which was clearly against the statutory bar contained under S.80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Further, the variation will not serve the convenience of the public and there would be three termini as per the variation which was against the provisions of law and on the above grounds the variation granted as per Ext. P6 order was liable to be set aside. In pursuance to Ext. P6 variation, the Secretary, R.T.A., issued Ext. P7 timings and the petitioner sought for an order to quash Ext. P7 timings also. 3. The 4th respondent filed a counter affidavit traversing all the contentions raised in the petition. It was contended that the total distance covered by the variation was only 22 kms. and the allegation that the variation would extend to 41.5 kms. was denied. It was further contended that the variation was granted after considering the convenience of the public and no reasons are there to interfere with the above orders. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the 4th respondent and the learned Government Pleader. 5. Regular variation was granted to the 4th respondent in respect of his vehicle bearing No. KL-9/F 6084 by Ext. P6 order. The above vehicle was operating on the route Mappattukavu-Guruvayur via. Cherakottuchira, Perunthalkovil, Vallappuzha, Koppam, Pattambi, Koottanad, Chalisserry and Kunnamkulam as ordinary service. The proposed variation as disclosed from Ext. P6 was (1) extension from Pattambi Cherplasserry via. 5. Regular variation was granted to the 4th respondent in respect of his vehicle bearing No. KL-9/F 6084 by Ext. P6 order. The above vehicle was operating on the route Mappattukavu-Guruvayur via. Cherakottuchira, Perunthalkovil, Vallappuzha, Koppam, Pattambi, Koottanad, Chalisserry and Kunnamkulam as ordinary service. The proposed variation as disclosed from Ext. P6 was (1) extension from Pattambi Cherplasserry via. Vallapuzha, (2) Cherplasserry Mulayankavu via. Kulukkallur R.S.(Extension) and (3) conversion of service as LSOS. The decision of the RTA reads: "Heard. Extension of service from Pattambi to Cherplassery via. Vallappuzha and Cherplassery to Vallappuzha via Kulukkallur Railway Station are allowed. The request for conversion as LSOS is rejected since the conversion will adversely affect to the travelling public, especially students". One of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the R.T.A. has not considered whether the proposed variation was convenient to the public and whether it was not expedient to grant a separate permit in respect of the original route and it was in violation of the statutory mandate under S.80(3) proviso to the Motor Vehicles Act. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in PA. Jose v. R.T.A. and Ors. (1992 (1) KLJ 665) wherein this Court has held that the authority granting variation has to be satisfied that such variation will serve the convenience of the public and it is not expedient to grant a separate permit in respect of the original route as so varied or extended. It was further held that the satisfaction envisaged in the section is not subjective, but it should reflect in the order. It is true that an elaborate order has not been made in Ext. P6 order, yet a consideration of the above order would clearly reveal that the convenience of the public had been considered by the R.T.A. and that was the reason why the conversion of the service as LSOS was rejected on the ground that the conversion would adversely affect the convenience of the travelling public, especially the students. When one of the reliefs was disallowed holding that it would adversely affect the convenience of the travelling public, especially students, naturally the aspect of public convenience should have been considered while granting the other reliefs. Thus the order would reveal that the R.T.A. had considered the convenience of the public while granting the variation as well as extension. When one of the reliefs was disallowed holding that it would adversely affect the convenience of the travelling public, especially students, naturally the aspect of public convenience should have been considered while granting the other reliefs. Thus the order would reveal that the R.T.A. had considered the convenience of the public while granting the variation as well as extension. Though an elaborate order has not been passed on the above aspect, Ext. P6 order would reveal that the convenience of the public had been considered while granting the variation and there was substantial compliance of the statutory requirement. Hence the above argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. 6. Another contention put forward by the petitioner was that the variation exceeded 24 kms. and as such the above variation cannot be allowed. It is true that as per the first proviso to S.80(3) of the Act, the maximum distance that can be varied was 24 kms., but the contention in the counter would reveal that the total distance of the varied route was only 22 kms. What exactly was the extent of the variation or extension is a disputed fact. No evidence was let in to show that the total distance of the varied route was more than 24 kms. In the absence of any reliable evidence, it is not possible to accept the above contention put forward by the petitioner and make a decision on a disputed question of fact. 7. The main argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that by the variation one more terminal was introduced and thereby there were three termini and as such the grant of variation was illegal. It was further submitted that there cannot be more than one route with more than two termini in a permit and hence the variation granted by the RTA was illegal as it would include three termini with more than one route. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent submitted that a permit can be in respect of more than one route with more than two termini and as such the grant of variation was fully in accordance with law and the same was valid. She was placing reliance on the provisions of the statute viz., S.70(1)(a), 72(2)(i) and 80(3) of the Act to substantiate her argument. She was placing reliance on the provisions of the statute viz., S.70(1)(a), 72(2)(i) and 80(3) of the Act to substantiate her argument. S.70(1) of the Act deals with the application for the stage carriage permit. S.70(1) reads: "Application for stage carriage permit. (1) An application for a permit in respect of a stage carriage 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; XXX XXX XXX 8. S.72 deals with the grant of stage carriage permit. 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 may 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; xxx x« xxx" 9. S.80(3) deals with the variation of permits. S.80(3) 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, orin the case of 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: S.70(1)(a) authorises the filing of an application for a permit in respect of a route or different routes. S.72(2) allows a vehicle to be used in a route or different routes. S.80(3) says that an application for variation of a route or different routes shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit. A reading of the above provisions would make it abundantly clear that a permit can be in respect of a single route or more than one route. 10. S.80(3) says that an application for variation of a route or different routes shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit. A reading of the above provisions would make it abundantly clear that a permit can be in respect of a single route or more than one route. 10. A 'route' has been defined under S.2(38) as follows: "route" means a line of travel which specifies the highway which may be traversed by a motor vehicle between one terminus and another;" The above definition would reveal that a route should have two termini. If a permit can include more than one route, there can reasonably be more than two termini also. A conjoint consideration of all the above provisions in the statute would make it clear that a permit can be in respect of more than one route and with more than two termini and the statute does not impose any prohibition on the above aspect. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Vivek Dwivedi v. Prem Narain (AIR 1999 MP 1). There a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, while considering whether on a single application a permit in respect of different routes could be granted, held: "43. 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." Therein the Madhya Pradesh High Court further held: "36. 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 all 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 submitted that the principle laid down in the above decision can be made applicable to the present case and that a permit can be issued only in respect of a single route and it cannot be in respect of different routes. With great respect I disagree with the above approach made by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in importing the provisions of the General Clauses Act in interpreting the provisions in the statute. The legislature in its wisdom had used the word "route" as well as "routes" in S.71(1)(a), 72(2) and 80(3) under different contexts and it is difficult to hold that the usage of the word "routes" will have to be treated as "route" in the singular form. When the legislature has used the word "route" as well as "routes" in the same provisions, the intention of the legislature is explicit and an interpretation of the above two words as one by importing the provisions of the General Clauses Act cannot be accepted. Further, the facts of the above cited case do not have any similarity with the facts of the present case. Hence I am reluctant to accept the approach made by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the above case. 12. The 4th respondent was having the permit to operate the vehicle from Mappattukavu-Guruvayur via Cherakottuchira, Perunthalkovil, Mulayankavu, Koppam, Pattambi, Koottanad, Chalissery and Kunnamkulam as ordinary service. The variation was from Pattambi - Cherplassery via. Vallappuzha and Cherplassery, Mulayankavu via.Kulukkallur. In fact, the earlier termini Guruvayur and Mappattukavu were retained and by variation another terminal viz. Cherplassery was also introduced. Though in Ext. P6 proceedings it was mentioned as extension, it was in fact a variation of route creating one more terminal, retaining the earlier two termini. A similar question was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Muktha V. Rai v. Nageswar Rao (2000(3)KLT281). There it was held: "...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. 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." The variation of the permit granted by Ext. P6 order was fully in accordance with law. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the R.T.A. had no jurisdiction to fix the timing tentatively as done in Ext. P7 and the above timing fixed tentatively by the respondent is liable to be set aside. He placed reliance on two decisions of this Court in R.K.V. Motors & Timbers Ltd. v. R.T.A., Trivandrum (1968 KLT 73) and C.T. Service v. Secretary, R.T.A., Palghat (1973 KLT 266). There this Court held that the R.T.A. has no jurisdiction to fix the timings tentatively without holding a timing conference. 14. Hence the 2nd respondent has to hold a timing conference and fix the timings in accordance with law. As the petitioner is operating on the strength of Ext. P7,1 do not think that it is necessary to set aside, but the 2nd respondent shall settle the timings in accordance with law within two weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. Till the timings are settled by holding a timing conference, the 4th respondent is permitted to operate the vehicle as per Ext. P7 timings. 15. In the result the prayer for quashing Ext. P6 order granting variation is rejected. But the 2nd respondent shall hold a timing conference with notice to the petitioner and all concerned parties within two weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment and settle the timings in accordance with law. The O.P. is disposed of accordingly.