D P SHARMA Vs. SECRETARY RTA BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the owner of stage carriage vehicle No. MYA 7242. He has a stage carriage permit in respect of the said vehicle for the route Bangalore to Villupuram. As the permit has not been countersigned by the Transport Authorities in Tamil Nadu, the petitioner states that he has been Operating only between Bangalore and Attibele State border. The petitioner made an application on 4-10-1976 to the respondent the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Bangalore for grant of a special permit under sub-sec. (6) of S.63 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the purpose of tour of the toxtrists for the period between 15-11-1976 and 22-11-1976. The respondent rejected the petitioner's application by his endorsement dated 7-10-1976 Ext.'C'. The respondent has taken the view that having regard to the provisions of the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976, (Act 21 of 1976) (hereinafter referred to as the Acquisition Act), he is precluded from granting a special permit under sub-sec. (6) of S.63 of the Act. It is the said endorsement that the petitioner has challenged in this WP and he has also prayed for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's application for grant of a special permit under sub-sec (6) of Section 63 of the Act and in accordance with law.

(2.) S.51 of the Act provides for grant of contract carriage permits. Sub-sec(6) of S.63 of the Act provides for grant of special permits. That the special permit contemplated by sub-sec (6) of S. 63 of the Act is different from the contract carriage permit granted under S.51 of the Act is clear from the decision of this Court in SRMS Tourist Service Co., v. Secretary RTA (1975 7 KarLJ 395). Justice Jagannatha Shetty has, after a detailed examination of the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules, held 'that the contract carriage permit cannot be equated with a special permit and that one is totally different from the other. It was on the basis of the said decision that it was contended by Shri M.Rangaswamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the Acquisition Act onlv prohibits grant of contract carriage permits and not special permits under sub-sec(6) of S.63 of the Act and that therefore the view taken by the respondent is clearly erroneous.

(3.) The respondent has relied upon S.20 of the Acquisition Act, which reads as follows : 20. Corporation to have exclusive privilege of running any contract carriage - Notwithstanding anything in the Motor Vehicles Act, with effect on and from the notified date-