E I NARAYANAN Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY TRICHUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The common question of law arising in these cases for an authoritative pronouncement on which these writ petitions have been referred to a Full Bench is whether under the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the rules framed thereunder an applicant for the grant of a stage carriage permit, who had specified in his application itself the particulars of the vehicle which he proposes to put on the road in the event of the permit being granted in his favour, is entitled merely, on that account, to be preferred for the grant of the permit in relation to other applicants who, though shown to be possessed of equal or even better qualifications as on the date of consideration of the matter by the Regional or State Transport Authority, had not specifically furnished in their applications the particulars of the vehicles proposed to be used by them for operating the service in the event of the permit being granted to them. In Vypeen Transport Corporation (P.) Ltd. v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Trichur, 1960 Ker LT 1058: (AIR 1961 Ker 77), a Division Bench of this court observed: "Section 2 (20) of the Act defines 'permit' as the document authorising the use of a transport vehicle or a carrier vehicle. Rule 175 of the Motor Vehicles Rules insists that the registration mark of the vehicle be copied in the permit from the certificate of registration itself. The Form prescribed for an application for 'permit' also shows that the details of the vehicle concerned should be furnished in the application. If one has not the vehicle at the tune of his making the application, it cannot be understood how he would be able to give the details of the vehicle in his application. The provisions of the Act and the Rules thus indicate clearly that the applicant is expected to own the vehicle for whose use as a stage carriage he wants the permit in question. It follows therefore that an applicant who owns a bus has a better claim for permit than one who intends to acquire a vehicle. Needless to say that applicants who intend to purchase a vehicle after getting the permit deserve little consideration."

(2.) When these writ petitions came up for hearing before a Division Bench the writ petitioners contended that the aforesaid view expressed in Vypeen Transport Corporation's case, 1960 Ker LT 1058: (AIR 1961 Ker 77), cannot be regarded as correct or sound in the light of the subsequent pronouncement by a Full Bench of this court in Cannanore Dist. Motor Transport Employees' Cooperative Society Ltd, v. Malabar public Conveyance, 1962 Ker LT 446: (AIR 1962 Ker 341) and by the Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Mangrulpir Joint Motor Service Co. (P.) Ltd., AIR 1971 SC 1804, that the relevant date, with reference to which the relative qualifications and merits of the rival applicants have to be evaluated is the date on which the Regional/State Transport Authority takes up the subject for consideration and not any anterior date and that hence the said ruling require reconsideration. The Division Bench considered that there was prima facie force in the said contention and hence referred these cases to a Full Bench so that there may be an authoritative pronouncement on the question.

(3.) The particulars to be contained in an application for a stage carriage permit have been specified in Section 46 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called the Act). That section reads: