DAKSHAYANI Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Fourth respondent applied for a temporary permit on the route Alapuzha-Andhakaranazhi. Third respondent, who is the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority, dismissed the application on the ground that the 4th respondent is not the owner of the vehicle offered in the application. 4th respondent preferred an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal ('Appellate Tribunal' for short) against the order rejecting the application. The Appellate Tribunal by its judgment dated 27-9-1990 allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the third respondent and directed the third respondent to enquire whether the temporary need mentioned as harvesting and marketing of agricultural products is true and is in existence now and if so to issue a temporary permit for 20 days without time clash with the existing operators, particularly the petitioner. Ext. P4 is the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal. Petitioner challenges Ext. P4 in this original petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that under S.66(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') only an owner can apply for a temporary permit. The material words of S.66(1) reads thus:

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to draw a distinction for application of the said ratio to the facts of the present case. He pointed out that the said decision was rendered when the word "owner" in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 did not contain a condition that the owner should be the 'registered owner', whereas the definition of "owner" in the present Act contains such a condition. With this change in the definition of 'owner', according to the learned counsel, the ratio laid down in Viswanatha's case has no application. It is difficult to accept this contention. I do not think that the definition of 'owner' in the present Act has any bearing on the question in dispute in this case. If the provisions in the Act imposed a restriction that a permit can be issued only to the owner of a vehicle, then perhaps the change in the definition of "owner" can bear some weight in disregarding the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Viswanatha's case. S.66(1) of the Act, or any other provision or rule does not impose any such restriction. Therefore, the legal position continues without change under the present Act.