VIJAY V Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned government Pleader.

(2.) THE petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus being issued to the opposite party directing the opposite party to consider and dispose of his application for renewal of the permit. Learned Counsel pointed out that the petitioner had applied for transfer of permit in his favour which originally had been granted in favour of one K. N. Prabhakaran with reference to the route of Chikkaballapur-Tumkur and back. According to the petitioner's Counsel that permit which was in the name of K. N. Prabhakaran had expired on 30-11-1996. Petitioner's case is that he had made applications for renewal of that permit and on 9-1-1997 (sic) but earlier to that he had made an application for transfer of the permit on 4-1-1997 which also had not been considered. Petitioner's Counsel pointed out that application for renwal of permit granted in favour of K. N. Prabhakaran was seved by the petitioner on 15-11-1996 but the application was not disposed of. The permit had expired Law of writ of mandamus is that person must show his right which he wants to enforce and he must farther show that in spite of his approaching the authority, the authority failed to perform its obligation or perform its duties. Section 81 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988, deals with the duration and renewal of permit. Sub-section (2) of Section 81 provides that a permit may be renewed on an application made not less than 15 days before the date of its expiry. Sub-section (3) farther provides that the transport Authority-Regional or State as the case may be may entertain the application for renewal of permit alter, the last date is specified in that sub-section if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by good and sufficient cause from making an application within the time specified. Sub-section (4)provides for rejection of application for renewal for which (sic)and the ground based on the applicant's financial Condition in which case on the ground of financial condition covered by clause (a) the permit may be rejected or in a case where the applicant had been punished twice or more for certain offences specified in clause (b) of sub-section (4) of Section 81 within 12 months, as a result of operation of stage carriage permit by the applicant, then also it may provide a ground for rejection. Then there is section 82 which deals with transfer of permits. Sub-section (1)provides that permit shall not be transferable from one person to another except with the permission of the Transport Authority and except in cases covered by sub-section (2) of Section 82, A reading of these Sections 81 and 82 altogether reveals that the application for renewal can be made by the holder of the permit which means that a person in whose name the permit has been originally granted and if the applicant who has been holding permit applies for renewal of the permit and is found to be suffering from either deficient financial condition or financial stringency or circumstances or has been punished for the offences in clause (b) of Section 81 (4) the renewal may be rejected. This provision, read with Section 82 in which provides under that permit shall not be transferable leads me to hold that the permit which has been granted to a person is granted to a particular person and renewal of permit could also be granted to that person and in the name of that person unless and until the permit during the period of its operation has been transferred in favour of some other person by and with the permission of the transport Authority or permit stands transferred because of considerations covered by sub-section (2) of Section 81 (4 ). In the present case viz. , Sri K. N. Prabhakaran did not himself move the application for renewal of the permit as permit before its expiry nor had it been transferred with permission- of Regional transport Authority or State Transport Authority in favour of the petitioner. In this view of the matter in my opinion, no valid right had accrued in favour of the petitioner to apply for the renewal of the permit which had been granted in favour of K. N. Prabhakaran. If K. N. Prabhakaran would have applied for renewal of permit in accordance with the provisions of Section 81 and authorities would have failed to discharge their obligations and duties then there might have been a case for consideration for issue of writ of mandamus. Here in the present case nothing has been alleged by petitioner to the effect that K. N. Prabhakaran had applied for renewal. In this view of the matter petitioner had no locus standi to move for renewal of the permit which had originally been issued in favour of K. N. Prabhakaran and the period of which had also expired as the Counsel for the petitioner points out on 30-11-1996 itself. An application for transfer of permit has been moved by the petitioner on 4-1-1997, today it is 29-1-1997. No doubt more than three weeks have passed the application in every case should have been disposed off may be hold it as not maintainable passed on. The authorities will dispose of that application expeditiously considering the relevant material.

(3.) PETITIONER's case is that he represented on 9-2-1997 for renewal at the earliest. As mentioned earlier he had no right to claim for renewal of the permit, when the permit had already been expired which was in favour of K. N. Prabhakaran, there does not remain any permit to be transferred. The writ petition is hereby dismissed with the expectation that if formal order is necessary to be passed by Regional Transport Authority on the application for transfer of the permit, it should expeditiously dispose of that application within 10 days in accordance with law and requirements of law.