D DEVARAJA IYER Vs. RTA TRICHUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was operating a stage carriage between Trichur and Kallur via Ollur Junction, Trikkur Bridge, Muttans Corner and Palliyara. The 3rd respondent was operating two stage carriages between Trichur and Trikkur via Ollur Junction; he has a case, that for one of the stage carriages, he had a permit up to Muttans Corner and for the other up to Ponnukara on the north of Palliyara, but this controversy is immaterial for the disposal of this petition. When the road from Muttans Corner to Kallur was declared unfit for traffic, the Regional Transport Authority, Trichur, by order Ext. P2, dated December 18, 1959, permitted the petitioner to operate his stage carriage, and also the third respondent to operate one of his stage carriages, between Trichur and Kallur via Ollur Junction and Amballur. This was without following the procedure prescribed by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, or simply the Act, for effecting variations in the conditions of the permit or for the issuing of new permits. On representations being made against Ext. P2, the Regional Transport Authority modified it by Ext. P3 dated December, 29, 1959, by which, the third respondent was prohibited from operating his stage carriage via Amballur to Kallur. He preferred an appeal to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal against Ext. P3 without impleading the petitioner, and obtained an order staying the operation of Ext. P3. This petition has been filed to quash the above order, as having been made without jurisdiction, as, according to the petitioner, no appeal lay to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal against Ext. P3 under the provisions of S.64 of the Act. The only question canvassed before me in this petition was, whether an appeal lay to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal.

(2.) Counsel were agreed before me, that the appeal against Ext. P3 can be maintained, if at all, only under clause (b) of S.64 of the Act, as ordering a variation of a condition of the permit. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner S.48 of the Act is exhaustive of the conditions of a permit, a variation of any of which, will come within the scope of S.64 (b), and that the variation of a route or routes covered by a permit being not specifically mentioned in S.48, cannot be deemed to be a condition of the permit. The question in the last analysis is, therefore, whether a route, or routes covered by a permit, is a condition of the permit. Whatever arguments might have been open before, since the passing of the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act 100 of 1956 there is no room for any doubt, as by sub-s.(8) of S.57, the inclusion of a new route or routes is treated as a variation of the condition of the permit, for it reads: