Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 725 (KER)

P. Ahammed v. The Regional Transport Authority

2002-11-08

A.LEKSHMIKUTTY, S.SANKARASUBBAN

body2002
Judgment :- Sankarasubban, J. The appellant herein was the petitioner and respondents herein were the respondents in the Original Petition. The O.P. was filed praying for a direction to implement Ext.P1 judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal directing to grant a regular stage carriage permit to the appellant. The appellant applied for the grant of a regular stage carriage permit on the route Karakkad-Cherplassery by offering stage carriage KL-10/M-3449 or other vehicle. By proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 17.1.2002 it was rejected as follows:- Heard. Rejected since there is no ready vehicle and the offered vehicle KL-10/M-3449 is having a regular permit on the route Ongallur-Ottappalam valid upto 3.1.2007.” Against the order of the first respondent, the petitioner filed an appeal as MVAA No.278/02 and by judgment dated 29.5.02 the Appellate Tribunal found that the rejection of the grant of permit on the ground that the offered vehicle is having a regular permit is unsustainable in view of the Division Bench ruling reported in 2000(1) KLJ 141 as the applicant is having a time period of one month and thereafter a period of 3 months for the production of the records of the vehicle after the grant of the permit as per the provisions of Rule 159(2) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules etc. The Appellate Tribunal therefore directed the first respondent to grant the permit on the route in question subject to settlement of timings within a period of 30 days. That judgment was not implemented by the respondent and therefore the appellant has filed the Original Petition praying for a writ of mandamus to implement that judgment alone. When the matter came up before the learned single Judge the learned Single Judge relying on the decision reported in 1999(2) KLT 434 set aside Ext.P1 judgment itself for which there was no such prayer. It is against that the present appeal is filed. 2. So far as the application for stage carriage is concerned, the applicant can mention that the permit will be issued to the vehicle which is really available or which will be produced at the time of issuing permit. It is not necessary to state the details regarding the stage carriage at the time of filling the application. 2. So far as the application for stage carriage is concerned, the applicant can mention that the permit will be issued to the vehicle which is really available or which will be produced at the time of issuing permit. It is not necessary to state the details regarding the stage carriage at the time of filling the application. Formerly when the right was given to the private owners to challenge a permit or when there is a competition for a permit on a particular route, the question of preference was resorted to. It was held by this court in such cases a person who has got ready vehicle at the time of consideration of application will be preferred to a person who does not have a vehicle. That is not the condition now. Here the appellant applied for a grant of permit by giving the details of a vehicle and also stated that he will produce another vehicle on the date as per the law before the issue of the permit. Hence, according to us the view taken by the learned single Judge that the Tribunal was wrong in granting permit to the appellant is wrong. Further we do not understand how a grant of a permit can be interfered in an original petition filed by the applicant for implementation of the order. The order granting permit has become final. That cannot be interfered. That is not challenged by the State. So far as the Division Bench decision in Ushakumari v. Abdul Azeez 2000(1)KLJ 141 is concerned, as per Rule 159 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, it is only necessary to produce the current records of the vehicle within thirty days from the date of grant of permit which can be extended upto four months as allowed by the competent authority. Therefore it is not mandatory on the part of the appellant to produce the current records at the time for consideration of the application. Radhakrishnan,J. in Johnson v. R.T.A. Trichur 1999(2)KLT 434 held as follows:- An applicant is bound to give details of the vehicle in the application itself for atleast at the time when the application comes up for consideration before the R.T.A. when application comes up for consideration before the R.T.A. R.T.A. could decide the necessity of granting a permit on a particular route to meet the requirement of the travelling public. It is after assessing the necessity the RTA grants the permit. If the vehicle offered by an operator is already covered by a permit, evidently that permit was granted by the R.T.A. considering the need of the traveling public as well as necessity of operating vehicle on particular route. If option is given to the operator to choose between permits that will be against public interest and will defeat the object of the legislation. Petitioners contention if accepted the vehicle can then be covered by any number of permits. That will given an undue advantage to the operator so as to decide through which route he should operate his vehicle. It will also deny the chance of other applicants who otherwise would have got the permit." 3. It is true that a vehicle already covered under a permit cannot be given another permit. In this case, the appellant has clearly stated that there are two vehicles, one is already having a permit. Further it cannot be said that the vehicle which is already having a permit cannot be considered. If within the time required for the issue of the permit the validity of the earlier permit in the offered bus expires. We do not agree with the findings of the learned single Judge. We set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge and direct the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad to take all steps to issue permit to the appellant within a period of one month from today after settling the timings. Writ Appeal is disposed of as above.