KUNHIKRISHNAN NAIR Vs. RTO MALAPPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant herein is aggrieved by the dismissal of O.P.No. 1862 of 1991 by the learned Single Judge. Hence this appeal.

(2.) Appellant is a holder of regular stage carriage permit on the route Kuttippuram-Ponnani. Subsequently he obtained an extension of the permit to cover Ponnani-Puthenpally route. Sometime thereafter he applied for further extension of the route Puthenpally to Kunnamkulam. This was challenged by an existing operator on the extended route before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, who quashed the order of the Regional Transport Authority on the ground that the two extensions together would exceed the maximum distance of 24 Kms prescribed by S.80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for short the "Act". Thereupon the appellant herein challenged this order by filing O.P.No.1862 of 1991, which has been dismissed. Hence this appeal.

(3.) S.80 of the Act relates to procedure in applying for and granting permits. Sub-section (3) of & 80 states that an application to vary the conditions of any permit, other than a temporary permit by the inclusion of a new route or routes or a new area or by altering the route or routes or area covered by it, etc., shall be treated as an application for the grant of anew permit. The second proviso to sub-section (3) of S.80 separately deals with cases of variation, and cases of extension. The first clause of the second proviso states that in the case of variation, the termini shall not be altered, and the distance covered by the variation shall not exceed twenty-four kilometres. The second clause of the second proviso states that in the case of extension the distance covered by extension shall not exceed twenty-four kilometres from the termini. It is this provision which has been invoked in the present case. The proviso proceeds to state that any such variation or extension within such limits shall be made only after the transport authority is satisfied that such variation will serve the convenience of the public and that it is not expedient to grant a separate permit in respect of the original route as so varied or extended or any part thereof.