K M THOMAS Vs. RTA KOTTAYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On March 11, 1960, the Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam, the first respondent here, invited representations regarding the issue of two pucca permits, to operate stage carriages between Arunapuram and Ponkunnam. By proceedings, Ext. P2, dated May 31, 1960, the Regional Transport Authority decided to invite applications under S.57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, for two buses. The petitioner here, who has been operating a stage carriage on the same route and had objected before the Regional Transport Authority to the issue of pucca permits, preferred a revision petition to the State Transport Authority, against Ext. P2, pending which, a stay of further consideration of the matter, was ordered by Ext. P3. On July 26, 1960, the Regional Transport Authority passed proceedings, Ext. P4, under item 2 of the supplementary agenda, that the R. T. A. finds that there is imperative necessity to operate additional service on this route and ordered, that temporary permit will be granted to the third respondent to run this line. This petition is to quash Ext. P4 on the ground, that the need, if at all, was permanent, and no temporary permit could issue. The Regional Transport Authority has not held under the aforesaid item in Ext. P4, that there is a temporary need, which has come into existence now. The third respondent has of course alleged a temporary need in this Court, but the Regional Transport Authority has not found the existence of such temporary need. The learned Government Pleader, who appeared for the Regional Transport Authority, has stated, that the need was permanent. If so, the rulings of this Court are clear, that no temporary permit can issue in the case of a permanent need. It is only necessary to refer to V. Kunju Menon v. Secretary, R.T.B., Trichur, AIR 1957 T.C. 255 and G. B. Transports, Guruvayur v. R.T.A. Trichur, 1959 KLT 1176 . I cannot accede to the prayer of the learned Government Pleader, that Ext. P4 may be allowed to be in force till the school examinations are over, and may be quashed subsequently, because the need as it exists, is a permanent need, which does not justify the issue of a temporary permit. The proceedings under item 2 of the supplementary agenda, Ext. P-4, by which the temporary permit, was ordered to issue to the third respondent, are hereby quashed; I make no order as to costs.