Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 580 (KER)

Elias Mathai v. The Regional Transport Authaority

2002-09-03

R.RAJENDRA BABU

body2002
Judgment :- Sri.C.P.Mohammedili (the third respondent in op 9605/2002) filed an application before the first respondent, RTA, Malappuram for the grant of regular permit in respect of his stage carriage to operate on the inter district route Kondotty- Palakkad as LSOS subject to counter signature of the RTA, Palakkad. By the proceedings dated 9.7.2001, the RTA, Malappuram (the first respondent) rejected the above application holding that the main focus of operation of the vehicle was in between Mannarkkad and Palakkad in Palakkad District and as such the first respondent had no jurisdiction to grant the permit. The above order was challenged by Sri.C.P.Mohammedali before the STAT in MVAM No.665/2001. By Exhibit P7 order dated 15.11.2001 the STAT allowed the appeal and directed the first respondent to consider the application for regular permit afresh. The petitioners, who are two existing stage carriage operators, filed OP No.9605/2002 before this Court for quashing Exhibit P7 order of the STAT. In pursuance to Exhibit P7 order of the STAT, regular permit was granted to Sri.C.P.Mohammedali by the proceedings of the first respondent dated 22.3.2002. Petitioners in OP 9605/2002 challenged the above grant by filing OP No.13846/2002 before this Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for Sri..C.P.Mohemmadali (hereinafter referred to as the third respondent) and the learned Government Pleader. 3. The third respondent filed an application for the grant of regular permit before the first respondent to operate his vehicle on the inter district route Kondotty-Palakkad as LSOS. The route covers 1121 kms. out of which 63.5 km lies in Malappuram District from Kondotty to Unniyal and the balance portion of 57.5 km from Unniyal to Palakkad lies in Palakkad District. But, as per the time schedule proposed by the third respondent, the operation of the vehicle was mainly confined to day time between Palakkad and Mannarkkad, within Palakkad District, a distance of nearly 40 km and the early morning trip and last evening trip would touch Kondotty in Malappuram District. The first respondent had taken the view that the application should be filed before the authority within whose jurisdiction the main focus of operation was, though the route length was slightly more in Malappuram District. Sri.C.P.Mohammedali challenged the above order before the STATR and the START took the view that the application should be filed before the authority within whose jurisdiction the route length was more. Sri.C.P.Mohammedali challenged the above order before the STATR and the START took the view that the application should be filed before the authority within whose jurisdiction the route length was more. Accordingly, the START directed the first respondent to decide the matter afresh. 4. The main question for consideration is which of the RATS has the jurisdiction to grant regular stage carriage permit when the route length is more in one district where as the main operation of the vehicle, the total distance covered by the operation is more in another district. The learned counsel of the petitioners submitted that the jurisdiction has to be decided on the basis of the use of the vehicle in the area or route. Section 69 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) deals with the jurisdiction of the RTA or the State Transport Authority regarding the grant of permit. Section 69(1) of the Act reads: "Every application for a permit shall be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which it is proposed to use the vehicle or vehicles: Provided that if it is proposed to use the vehicle or vehicles in two or more regions lying within the same State, the application shall be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which the major portion of the proposed route or area lies and in case the portion of the proposed route or area in each of the regions is approximately equal, to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which it is proposed to keep the vehicle or vehicles:" The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per Section 69(1) of the Act every application for the grant of regular permit should be made before the RTA of the region where the vehicle was proposed to be used and as per the proviso to Section 69(1) of the Act, when the vehicle had to be used in two or more regions the application had to be filed within the jurisdiction of the RTA, where the major portion of the route or area over which the vehicle was proposed to operate. It was further submitted that the jurisdiction has to be decided on the basis of the use of the vehicle where the vehicles proposed to be used in more than one region. It was further submitted that the jurisdiction has to be decided on the basis of the use of the vehicle where the vehicles proposed to be used in more than one region. A route as defined under Section 2(38) of the Act, reads: "Route means a line of travel which specifies the highway which may be traversed by a motor vehicle between one terminus and another". The Supreme Court in C.P.C. Motor Service, Mysore V. State of Mysore (AIR 1966 SC 1661) held that a route is meant not only the national line, but also the actual route over which the vehicle run. There it was further held that the word "route" or "area" stand for the road on which the vehicle run or portions there of.. In C.P.S.R.M. Service v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1974 SC 1905) the Supreme Court held that A route is an area plus something more. In J.Y.Kondala Rao v. Andra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (AIR 1961 SC 82) the Supreme Court held that there was no inherent inconsistency between an "area" and a "route" and the route also is an area limited to the route proposed. The Supreme Court in D.Papiah v. Mysore State Transport Aooekkate Tribunal 976) 1 SCC 953) while considering the word "area" in the statute held that the area is meant the route over which the vehicle ply without reference to any notional line of travel. That was a case relating to the grant of contract carriage permit. There it was further held that the word ‘area’ meant, the area of motorable roads within the territorial jurisdiction of a RTA and not the extent or the geographical area of the region. A consideration of the above decisions would make it clear that the jurisdiction of the RTA to grant the permit has to be decided on the basis of the use of the vehicle. If the use of the vehicle is more in one region, i.e. the operation of the vehicle is more, even if the route length is more in the other District, the jurisdiction shall be with the RTA in whose jurisdiction the use of the vehicle is more. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that in giving the meaning to the word "route", for deciding the jurisdiction of the RTA, the other relevant provisions of the Act also has to be looked into. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that in giving the meaning to the word "route", for deciding the jurisdiction of the RTA, the other relevant provisions of the Act also has to be looked into. It was further argued that Section 71 of the Act also has some relevance in deciding the issue an controversy. Section 71 of the Act deals with the procedure of the RTA in considering the application for stage carriage permit. Sub section 3 of the Section 71 of the Act empowers the State Government to issue notification limiting the number of stage carriages operating in city routes or towns with a population of not less than five lakhs. It was submitted that a notification under Section 71(3) of the Act had been issued by the Government limiting the permits to be issued within the city limits of Kozhikode and Ernakulam. The above notification was issued on eh basis of the road condition, the number of vehicle and all relevant factors including the safety of the public at large. It was further submitted that permits are beings issued from the neighbouring RTAs by which the notification under Section 71(3) of the Act is defeated, whereby a large number of vehicles are allowed to operate mainly within the city limits. In fact, certain permits were issued by the neibhbouring RTAs wherein the main focus of operation of the vehicie was within the city limits., i.e. the operation would start from the neighbouring region and after entering into the city limits, the operation would be exclusively within the city limits throughout the day and the starting trip as well as the last evening trip alone would be outside the city limits and thereby the object and the purpose of the notification under Section 71(3) of the Act was being defeated. In fact, the notification issued under Section 71(3) of the Act limiting the number of vehicles is being indirectly defeated causing danger to public safety. The permit sought for in the present case also was one wherein the main focus of operation was within the area of Palakkad District whereas the starting trip as well as the evening return trip alone were to operate within the region of the RTA, Malappuram, the authority granting the permit. 6. The permit sought for in the present case also was one wherein the main focus of operation was within the area of Palakkad District whereas the starting trip as well as the evening return trip alone were to operate within the region of the RTA, Malappuram, the authority granting the permit. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the RTA, Ernakulam had already taken a decision on 26.11.1996 to request the other RTAs not to issue permits to operate the vehicle mainly within the city limits of Ernakulam. In fact, the RTA, Ernakulam had found that the object of the notification under Section 71(3) of the Act was being defeated by the issue of permits by other RTA wherein the main focus of operation or the vehicle was within the city limits. Taking into consideration all the relevant provisions, the jurisdiction of the RTA for the grant of permit in respect of inter district routes will have to be decided on the basis of the use of the vehicle. Thus, the jurisdiction of the RTA to grant the permit was with the RTA Palakkad within whose jurisdiction the main focus of operation was and hence the order of the RTA, Malappuram refusing to consider the application was proper and in accordance with law and the STAT was not justified in interfering with the order of RTA, Malappuram and hence the judgment of the STAT in MVAA No 665/2001 and the further orders thereon are liable to be set aside. 7. Exhibit P7 order of the STAT in MVAA No 665/2001 and the further order passed by the RTA. Malappuram are quashed. The application filed by C.P. Mohammed Ali for the grant of regular permit shall be considered by the RTA, Palakkad and orders shall be passed in accordance with law. These original petitions are disposed of accordingly.