K L RAVIKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner has challenged the Order dated 3-3-1997, whereby the secretary, regional transport authority, mandya has refused to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of special permit under Section 88 (8) of the motor vehicles ACT on the ground that he has not received any instruction from the government as also the rules framed thereunder. The Order reads as under:

(2.) THIS Order per se appears to be nothing but refusal to exercise the jurisdiction vested in the authority on the misconception of facts. In vijaya N. Rai v State of Karnataka and others, this court had the occasion to consider the provisions of law in similar circumstances. This court after having referred to provisions of Section 88 (8) and after having referred to Section 20 of the Karnataka contract carriages acquisition ACT 1976 as well as Section 24 thereof, this exemption clause along with clause (iv) added to Section 24 of ACT 21 of 1976, as inserted by Karnataka amendment Order in 1976, observed as under:

(3.) "section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, provides for validation of permits for use outside the region in which it is granted. Sub-section (8) of Section 88 may be quoted herewith: "section 88 (8 ). Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), but subject to any rules that may be made under this ACT by the central government, the regional transport authority of any one region or, as the case may be, the state transport authority, may, for the convenience of the public, grant a special permit to any public service vehicle including any vehicle covered by a permit issued under Section 72 (including a reserve stage carriage) or under Section 74 or under sub-section (9) of this Section for carrying a passenger or passengers for hire or reward under a contract, express or implied, for the use of the vehicle 'as a whole without stopping to pick up or set down along the line of route passengers not included in the contract, and in every case where such special permit is granted, the regional transport authority shall assign to the vehicle, for display thereon, a special distinguishing mark in the form and manner specified by the central government and such special permit shall be valid in any other region or state without the counter-signature of the regional transport authority of the other region or of the state transport authority of the other state, as the case may be". A reading of this Section per se reveals that under this section, notwithstanding what is contained in sub-section (1) of Section 88, the regional transport authority of the region as well as the state transport authority have been empowered, subject to any rules made under the act, to grant special permit to any public service vehicle including the vehicles covered by a permit issued under Section 72 or under Section 74 or under Section 88 (9) of the act. The conditions are specified subject to which special permit has to be granted and the period for which it shall be valid and it provides that it shall be valid in other states without being counter-signed. A reading of the Section reveal, that no higher authority is required to issue directions to the regional transport authority, regional transport officer or state transport authority to grant special permits. Sub-section 88 (8) empowers the state transport authority or the regional transport authority, as the case may be, subject to what is provided under sub-section (8), for the convenience of the public, issue special carriage permit. The question of public convenience may also include the convenience or interest of the students or public involved in educational activities as well as to broaden the vision of the students irom the narrow limits of townships of regionalism to that of higher regions namely students of villages may'have the light of towns, cities or other regions as well as other parts of the country. So far as the purpose mentioned, the convenience of the public, particularly the student community, the transport authority regional or state can grant the permit, but subject to the conditions prescribed in the ACT or subject to the rules made by the government. So, in my opinion, the regional transport officer has mistaken by refusing to grant special permit on the ground that it has not received any direction from the higher authorities. There was no question of higher authority issuing any directions when the ACT itself so provides. No doubt, Karnataka ACT 21 of 1976, Karnataka contract carriages (acquisition) act, provides for exclusive privilege of running any contract carriages in favour of the state transport corporation. A reading of Section 20 of the Karnataka contract carriages (acquisition) act, 1976, provides as under: Section 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. a reading of this Section shows that permit is granted with exception to vehicles mentioned in sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of clause (1 ). A reading of this Section indicates that the exclusive privilege conferred to the corporation which will not effect adversely the carriages covered by Section 24. Section 24 of ACT 21 of 1976 is exemption clause. It provides as under:clause (iv) which has been added and inserted by the amendment ordinance namely the Karnataka contract carriages (acquisition) (Amendment) ordinance, 1996, reads as under:the provisions of Section 24 of the ACT 21 of 1976 will not apply to any public service vehicle including other vehicles referred to in respect of which a permit under Section 88 (8) of the motor vehicles ACT is or has been issued. It means it may apply to the cases where permit under Section 88 (8) has not been issued.