K RAJENDRAN Vs. K S KRISHNADAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Writ Appeals are against the common judgment of a learned single Judge, reported in Rajendran v. S.T.A.T (1991) 1 KLT 255. Two question arise for consideration in these appeals, namely (1) whether a stage carriage permit issued under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 can be renewed u/S. 81 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and (2) whether the grounds given for rejecting an application for renewal of a permit u/S. 81(4) are exhaustive or only illustrative. The learned Judge answered the first question in the negative and held on the second question that the grounds given in S. 81(4) for rejection of an application for renewal are exhaustive and not illustrative.

(2.) The appellant in W.A. No. 34 of 1991 was the petitioner in O.P. No. 10080 of 1990 and he was operating 9 stage carriage services on different routes. When the period of the permits of 4 stage carriages was nearing expiry, he applied for renewal of those permits before the Regional Transport Authority, under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Regional Transport Authority held that in view of S. 71(4) of the 1988 Act, he is not entitled to get renewal of the permits. That Authority also declined renewal in view of S. 81(4) of the 1988 Act, as the Tahsildar of the place had issued prohibitory orders against transfer of four vehicles of the appellant-petitioner and revenue recovery proceedings had been initiated for arrears of tax in respect of some of his vehicles. Accordingly the R.T.A. rejected the applications for renewal. He filed an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (S.T.A.T.) challenging the order of the Regional Transport Authority. The Tribunal held that S. 71(4) of the 1988 Act is not a bar since the original permits were granted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The Tribunal further held that the matter is entirely governed by S. 81 of the new Act and as there is no prohibition therein as is contained in S. 71(4), there cannot be a bar for renewing the permits. But the Tribunal found that the grounds enumerated in S. 81(4)(b) are not exhaustive but only illustrative and accordingly set aside the order of the R.T.A. on that question and directed that Authority to dispose of the applications afresh, in the light of the observations contained in its order. The petitioner (in O.P. 10080 of 1990) challenged the order (Ext. P5) of the Tribunal holding that the grounds enumerated in S. 81(4) of the new Act are only illustrative. The 3rd respondent in that Original Petition, one Rajendran, was hoping to get a regular stage carriage permit on one of the routes in question in the vacancy that may arise if the permit in favour of the appellant-petitioner is not renewed. He filed O.P. No. 10206 of 1990 challenging the finding of the Tribunal that the disability envisaged in S. 71(4) of the new Act cannot have any application in regard to an application for renewal u/S. 81(4). Under the impugned judgment the learned single Judge disposed of the two Original Petitions as mentioned above.

(3.) Coming to the first question, the permits in question were granted to the appellant in W.A. No. 34 of 1991 under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the 1939 Act). The 1939 Act was repealed by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 1988 Act) which came into force on 1-7-89. It is an admitted fact that the appellant was having more than 5 permits on the date of application for renewal of the permits which contravenes the provision contained in S. 71(4) of the 1988 Act. The argument raised by counsel for the appellant in W.A. No. 34 of 1991 is that the bar contained in S. 71(4) cannot apply to the case of renewal of a permit granted under the 1939 Act, if the other conditions mentioned in S. 81 are satisfied. He also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in V.C.K. Bus Service v. R.T. Authority, (1957 All LJ 746) wherein the nature of renewal of a permit under the 1939 Act was considered. It was observed :