V T RAJAKUMAR Vs. S T A T

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner No. 2 B.R.Vijayachandra is the holder of a stage carriage permit authorised to operate on the route between Siddapura to Virajpet. The said permit. is covered by a vehicle bearing Registration No.MYM 3422. He wanted to transfer the permit in favour of petitioner No.1 V.T.Rajakumar. Both the petitioners approached the Regional Transport Authority ("R.T.A.") Kodagu with an application prescribed for the purpose. Along with the application, the petitioners filed separate affidavits in which they have in identical terms stated that they have been operating the service hitherto under a partnership firm and since petitioner No. 2 has been appointed as a Secretary of Sarvodaya Mahileyara Upadhyaya Shikskana Tharabeti Vidyalaya Committee, it. would be difficult to give his undivided attention towards the operation of the stage carriage and he would, therefore, like to transfer the permit in favour of petitioner No.1. In support of the averments, a partnership deed and a letter intimating the appointment of petitioner No.2 as a Secretary of the said Educational Institution were also produced. The R.T.A. by its meeting held on 28th September, 1978 rejected the application. The appeal preferred by the petitioners before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal was also dismissed. Hence the petitioners have moved this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution.

(2.) Before examining the contentions urged for the petitioners, it will be necessary to refer to the reasons given by the E.T.A. for rejecting the application of the petitioners To avoid repetition, I would rather extract hereunder the relevant portion of the said order:

(3.) Mr. Achar, learned counsel for the petitioners urged that these reasons are invalid inasmuch as they are extraneous to the issue under consideration. It seems to me that the contention urged is well founded and must be accepted as correct. S.59(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for transfer of permits. It states that save as provided in S. 61, a permit shall not be, transferable from one person to another except with the permission of the transport authority which granted the permit. Rule 134 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963 provides procedure for making an application for transfer and disposal of such applications. It provides that a party must make a joint application in writing in Form No.78 P.Tr.A. to the R.T.A. setting forth the reasons for the proposed transfer. The R.T.A. upon receipt of the application may require any party to state in writing whether any premium, payment or other consideration arising out of the transfer, is to pass or has passed between them and the nature and amount of any such premium, payment or other consideration. The rule further provides that if upon an enquiry the R.T.A. is satisfied that any matter stated to it by the parties was false it may refuse to transfer the permit and may declare void any transfer made upon such application. For the purpose of the enquiry, the R.T.A. may summon both the parties to the application to appear before it and may, if it deems fit, deal with the application as if it were an application for a permit. The rule also stages that it the R T.A. is satisfied that the transfer cf a permit may properly be made, it may make consequential entries in Parts A and B of the permit. It is seen from these provisions that a transfer of a permit from one person to another is prohibited unless it is permitted by the Transport Authority who granted that permit. For granting such permission or for rejecting it, S.59 or the Rules framed thereunder do not provide any guidelines. But it is apparent that the section, is for benefit of the permit holder. It is the duty of the Courts to construe such, provisions so as to encroach as little as possible on the liberties of the permit holders. The Rules provide that an application for transfer may be disposed of as it it were an applicatio for permit. That means the action of the R.T.A. should solely he guidtd in the interests of the travelling public generally. Exercise of power to sanction the transfer of a permit under S.59(1) is held to be quasi-judicial (See Ravi Roadways v. Asia Bi, AIR 1970 SC. 1241, 1243 Since the power is quasi-judicial, there shall be an objective determination of the question without the consideration of irrelevant or extraneous matters.