CHANDRASEKHAR Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is a stage carriage operator operating about 16 services covering the portion of the route between Mangalore and Udupi and other places, has challenged the grant of temporary permit in favour of respondent-2 who is the Proprietor of Ambica Motors, Mangalore.

(2.) The important questions of law which arise for consideration are : (1) Whether Rule 92 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963 read with Section 62(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 dispenses with the duty to assign reasons for grant of a temporary permit? (2) Whether a temporary permit can be granted when the vehicle is already covered by a regular permit in respect of the same route or in respect of substantially the same route?

(3.) The material facts emerging from the case are these : Respondent-2 applied for grant of a temporary permit for the route Kankanady to Malpe via Surathkal, Mulky, and Udupi for the period commencing from 7-12-1987 and expiring on 31-3-1988. Respondent-1, who is the Regional Transport Authority, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, represented by its Secretary, granted a temporary permit as sought by respondent-2 not by holding a regular meeting of the Board but by circulation in accordance with Rule 92 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963 (hereinafter called 'the Rules'). It is stated by the petitioner that respondent-2 is a holder of an existing regular stage carriage permit, familiarly known as pakka permit, under permit No. 29/DK/78-79 in respect of route Mangalore Railway Station to Manipal via Udupi in respect of his vehicle No. CTX 6352. It is also the grievance of the petitioner that the temporary permit has been granted for the second time in succession to respondent-2 by respondent-1. It is stated by the petitioner that the timings assigned in relation to the temporary permit are such that respondent-2 is free to operate the servce with continuous timings along with the pakka stage carriage permit. It appears that respondent-2 before obtaining the temporary permit had applied for variation by way of additional trip between Mangalore Railway Station and Manipal. The application came to be rejected by respondent-1. The route between Mangalore Railway Station and Manipal covers the entire route now granted under the impugned temporary permit besides the temporary permit obtained earlier. It is also stated that after the petitioner failed in his attempt to obtain a variation of his permit, respondent-2 has been successfully obtaining temporary permits on identical route. On 8-7-1987, respondent-2 sought for the grant of temporary permit between Mangalore Railway Station and Manipal. At the time of consideration of the application, objections were filed against the grant of permit by the petitioner mainly on the ground that the earlier application of respondent-2 had been rejected for variation by way of additional trip on the identical route and that therefore the application for temporary permit was just a pretext to circumvent the law which prevented the grant of variation. The other objection raised by the petitioner to the grant of temporary permit was that no temporary permit in law can be granted where the vehicle is already covered by a regular permit. A resolution was passed sanctioning a temporary permit in favour of respondent-2 on 18-7-1987 and respondent-1 issued a temporary permit in favour of respondent-2. Thereafter, Writ Petition Nos.12598 and 13638 of 1987 were filed by other objectors before this Court questioning the grant of temporary permit and the said Writ Petitions were allowed quashing the grant of temporary permit. At the time of quashing of the temporary permit, respondent-2 requested this Court for stay of operation of the order on the ground that the temporary permit which was the subject matter of those Writ Petitions would expire within a few days. Accordingly, a stay was granted. But, nevertheless, the finding became conclusive as against respondent-2. Subsequently, respondent-2 made an application again on 19-11-1987 for grant of a temporary permit between Kankanady and Malpe instead of Kankanady and Udupi. Between Udupi and Malpe, the distance is 5 K.Ms. and Malpe lies beyond Udupi. But for this short distance of 5 K.Ms. between Udupi and Malpe, the entire route is identical with the routes for which earlier applications were filed by respondent-2. As stated earlier, respondent-1 granted the temporary permit by following the procedure of circulation contemplated under Rule 92 of the Rules with out drawing up any proceedings and without holding a meeting. Obviously no personal hearing was granted to either respondent-2 or the petitioner and other objectors. The permit was valid for a period of four months. This temporary permit was again assailed before this Court by one of the objectors, namely, Wilson S. Periera in Writ Petition No. 18506 of 1987. Respondent-2 took time to file the objections and the case was adjourned from time to time and, ultimately, since the temporary permit was due to expire by efflux of time, the petitioner in the said Writ Petition restricted the challenge only to the timings assigned. This Court remanded the matter back to respondent-1 for re-assignment of time schedule without disturbing the priority of the said petitioner in the forward journey. However, respondent-1 modified the entire timings.