KUNJUMON Vs. THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P3 proceedings of the first respondent rejecting an application for temporary permit submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner is a stage carriage operator. He had applied for the grant of a temporary permit of four months duration on the route Vattaprambu-Angamaly - Kanakkankadavu. The temporary permit was sought for in the vacancy of stage carriage bearing registration No: KL- 7/AN 1431, with respect to which vehicle, the petitioner himself had been granted a regular permit, Ext.P1. However, according to him, the permit was surrendered by him and cancelled. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that, the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC for short) has not been granted a permit to conduct services on the route. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to seek for the issue of a permit under Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The ground on which the application for temporary permit has been rejected in Ext.P3 is that, there is an objectionable overlapping on the route, which exceeds 5% of the route length. The counsel for the petitioner meets the above objection by pointing out that the second respondent is not conducting services on the route and therefore, the petitioner's application for temporary permit can be considered. The counsel for the petitioner also relies on a Division Bench decision of this Court as well as a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court to support his contention.

(2.) According to the statement filed by the Standing Counsel, the route, Elavoor - Angamaly - Kanakkankadavu over which the petitioner has sought for the issue of a temporary permit under Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, objectionably overlaps the notified route. The Standing Counsel has submitted that the KSRTC is operating sufficient number of trips, in addition to the regular trips operated by private stage carriages over various routes. The said services are sufficient to cater the needs of the travelling public over the route proposed by the petitioner also. According to the statement, the route proposed by the petitioner overlaps the notified route beyond the permissible limit. Therefore, the impugned order rejecting the request of the petitioner for the issue of a temporary permit is fully justified. The counsel for KSRTC therefore submits that the writ petition may be dismissed.

(3.) The scope of Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in K.S.R.T.C. v. R.T.O. Ernakulam, 1997 2 KerLT 330. That was also a case in which there was objectionable overlapping on the notified route as in the present case. After considering Sections 103 and 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, at paragraph 8 of the said judgment this Court has held as follows:-