NATARAJ UKKUND Vs. KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18-5-1994, Annexure-A to this Writ Petition, whereby the R. T. A. , has rejected the petitioner's application for renewal of the stage carriage permit No. 2 of 79-80, as well as the order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal dated 15th September, 1995, whereby the respondent No. 1, that is the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal has dismissed the petitioner's appeal from the order of the Regional Transport Authority in Sub. No. RTA. Sub. Renewal/no. 35/93-94, on 18-5-94.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner, a permit holder from 1979, onwards having stage carriage permit No. 2 of 79-80, which had been renewed from time to time. This permit had been granted originally under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act No. IV of 1939 ). With effect from 1-7-1989, The (New) Motor Vehicles Act of 1988, that is Act No. 59 of 1988, came into operation and in force. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner filed an application on 17-2-1994, under the new Act, for renewal of the stage carriage permit No. 2 of 79-80, for Ranibennur to Sagar and back, as the period was due to expire on 1-4-1994. The Regional Transport Authority by its order dated 18-5-1994, rejected the application for renewal on the ground that offer to replace 1985 model in place of 1982 model is more than 5 years old. Feeling aggrieved from the order of rejection of application for renewal, the petitioner filed the Appeal No. 575/1994 and the Tribunal opined that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary Quilon Dist. Motor Transport Workers Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Regional Transport Authority, AIR 1995 SC 82 that the old permit issued under Act IV of 1939, could not be renewed under the provisions of the New Act and as such, dismissed the appeal without considering any other aspect of the matter. Having felt aggrieved from the order of the Tribunal dated 15-9-1995, the petitioner has come up before this Court by the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. I have heard Sri C. V. Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader Sri Shivayogiswamy. The main point that has been urged before me is that permit having been replaced under Sec. 80 (4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, for short, 'act', permit could be treated as a fresh permit granted under the New Act, though permit was originally granted in 1979-80, the original permit, no doubt had been renewed and thereafter, replacement order had been passed, it might have been treated as new permit and therefore, the application for renewal should have been considered on merits and the Appellate Tribunal of Transport should have allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the R. T. A. for reconsideration or should have itself considered the matter on merit. Learned Counsel also pointed out that during pendency of the Writ Petition, he had been granted interim order and in pursuance of interim order, he has been allowed to ply his vehicle which is 1991 model under the old permit in terms of Section 214 (2) of the Act. The contentions raised on behalf of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner had been contested by the learned Government Pleader Sri Shivayogiswamy.

(3.) I have applied my mind to the contentions made by the learned Counsels for the parties. In my opinion, there is no substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Section 80 (4) of the Act, 1988, has to be read harmoniously and along with Section 217 of the Act itself. It will be profitable to refer to the provisions contained in the Act. Section 80 of the Act, 1988, provides procedure in applying for and granting of permits. Sub-section (4) of Section 80 reads as under :