ABBAS ALI Vs. SECRETARY R T A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is an application for renewal of a regular permit filed, beyond the time prescribed by law, along with an application for excusing the delay, eligible to be treated as an application pending consideration, for the purpose of entertaining an application for temporary permit under Section 87(1)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' This is the issue in this bunch of matters, referred to the Division Bench by a learned Single Judge, indicating that the decision contained in Shahul Hameed v. Secretary, R. T. A.,1999 1 KerLT 273 requires reconsideration. Apart from the pleadings in the writ petitions, is an affidavit sworn to on 20-8-2011 on behalf of the Transport Commissioner, following the order dated 15-7-2011 calling for an affidavit touching all relevant aspects involved in these cases, through a Government officer at the competent level.

(2.) We heard learned Advocates Sajeev Kumar K. Gopal, Saju J. Vallyara and Shalini, N. C. for the writ petitioners, learned Senior Government Pleader P. K. Babu, who has also submitted a note of arguments, and learned Government Pleader M. K. Aboobacker. We also had profitable assistance of Adv. P. Santhosh Kumar (Tvm. ) as amicus curiae.

(3.) The petitioner's learned counsel argued that the provision in Section 87(1)(d) authorising the issuance of temporary permit pending decision on an application for the renewal of a permit is in favour of persons who can be treated as a class by themselves, that is, to say, those who have applied for renewal of permits. On this premise, it is further argued that though Section 81(2) provides that an application for renewal of regular permit shall be made not less than fifteen days before the date of its expiry, the provision in sub-section 3 of Section 81 enabling an application for renewal of a regular permit being entertained after the last date so specified, makes such an application also eligible to be treated as one pending decision for renewal of a pennit for the issuance of a temporary permit under Section 87(1) of the Act. In support, different precedents were relied on. Asgarali Nazarali Singaporewalla v. State of Bombay, 1957 AIR(SC) 503 was cited, to state that a legal proceeding is "pending" as soon as commenced and until it is concluded. Reference was made to M/s Lakshmiratan Engineering Works Ltd. v. Asst. Commissioner, Sales Tax, 1968 AIR(SC) 488 to say that the word "entertain" means "admit to consideration". Lt. Col. S. K. Kashyap v. State of Rajasthan, 1971 AIR(SC) 1120 was cited to state that "pending" means that "the matter is not concluded and the court having cognizance of it can make order on matter in issue". Martin & Harris Ltd. v. VIth Additional District Judge, 1998 1 SCC 732 was referred, to contend that always a nice distinction is maintained between the concepts "entertaining", "filing", "instituting" etc. Reference was made to Hindusthan Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Punnu Sahu, 1971 3 SCC 124 to point out that the word "entertain" means to "adjudicate upon" or to "proceed to consider on merits". Lala Ram v. Hari Ram, 1969 3 SCC 173 was cited to state that the word "entertain" means "file or received by the High Court". On the basis of these precedents, it is argued on behalf of the petitioners that the word "entertain" in sub-section 3 of Section 81 of the Act is to be construed to hold that a delayed application for renewal of a regular permit filed by showing good and sufficient cause for the delay, is to be treated as an application pending decision for the purpose of Section 87(1)(d). Accordingly, it is pointed out that Shahul Hameed's case does not lay down the law correctly and that precedent calls for reconsideration.