PRAKASH TRAVELS PVT LTD Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two writ petitions filed by a common petitioner who is a contract carriage operator in the State of Mysore. The common question raised in these writ petitions is whether the Regional Transport Authority which grants a permit can refuse to entertain an application for renewal on the ground that the grant of the original permit was without jurisdiction.

(2.) The petitioner which is a private limited company owns two motor vehicles bearing registration numbers MYA 2434 and MO 9001. In respect of the said vehicles the RTA., Bangalore (Respondent 2) had granted contract carriage permit to ply in the State of Mysore. When the period of the permit was about to expire the petitioner made applications for renewal of the permits for a period of five years with effect from 18-8-1971. The applications were made to the second respondent as is required by Rule 136 of the Mysore Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963. The second respondent ordered by its resolution dt.16-11-1971 that the renewal applications should be returned to the petitioner for presentation to the proper authority as the RTA., Bangalore had no jurisdiction to grant the permits in view of the 1st proviso to sub-sec. (1) of S.45 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1930. The appeals preferred against the said order before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal were unsuccessful and therefore the petitioner has approached this Court for relief under Art.226 of the Constitution.

(3.) The ground on which respondents 2 and 3 have directed the petitioner to file its applications before the appropriate authority was that under the first proviso to sub-sec. (1) of S.45, the application for a permit is required tc be made to the RTA. of the region in which the major portion of the proposed route or area lies and that such authority is the RTA., Bijapur. The third respondent has relied on the decision of this Court in Mysore State Road Transport Corporation v. P.V.Motor Service, (1971) 2 Mys.L.J. 197. It is relevant to state that the said decision was not concerned with an application for renewal but was concerned with the original application for permit. It is also stated before us that the said decision is now under appeal before the Supreme Court.