SECRETARY, QUILON DISTRICT MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS COOPERATIVE SOCIETY Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the writ petitioner in O.P.No.2162 of 1991.He is the Secretary of the Quilon District Motor Transport Workers 'Cooperative Society Ltd.More than 50 per cent of the share capital of the Society is owned by the State Government.The appellant had obtained,when the Motor Vehicles Act,1939 was in force,various stage carriage permits.One of the stage carriages,KLQ 6779,was granted a regular permit on the route Kundara -Chinnakkada(via)Anchalammood and Civil.Station,and this was for the period from 23rd December 1987 to 22nd December 1990.The appellant applied for renewal for a further period of five years from 23rd December 1990 under section Sl of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988.The said application was rejected under Ext.P -1 order dated 4th January 1991 by the Regional Transport Authority,Kollam by the following order: "Heard.Rejected as permit given under M.V.Act,1939 cannot be renewed under M.V.Act,1988.Hence application may be filed for fresh permit." Then the appellant filed an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in M.V.A.A.No.108 of 1991 and the appeal was dismissed as per Ext.P -3 judgment dated 7th February 1991 holding: "In Krishna Das v.R.T.A.Palakkad and others in O.P.10080 of 1990 -Y,the Honourable High Court has held that an application filed for renewal under the provisions of M.V.Act,1988 for a permit obtained under the provisions of the M.V.Act,1939,is not maintainable." Krishna Das v.K.T.A .,1991(2)KLT 203 is the decision of a Division Bench of this Court dealing with a right of renewal of a permit granted under the Old Act.and expiring after the commencement of the New Act.Under S.71(4)grant of permits for more than five is restricted.It was held that though it -was a case of renewal,the restriction in S.71(4)which was applicable to initial grant of permits under the New Act,was applicable to renewals after commencement of New Act,There,the judgment in Rajendran v.S.T.A.T .,( 1991(1)KLT 255)of a learned Single Judge was affirmed on appeal,but,however,certain observations in Rajendran's case,1991(1)KLT 255 were dissented in Para.11 of the appellate judgment in Krishna Das's case,1991(2)KLT 203,with which we are not concerned here.

(2.) NOW ,the case before us is also one where the permit was granted under the 1939 Act for the period from 23rd December 1987 to 22nd December 1990.The New Act of 1988 came into force with effect from 1st July 1989.The appellant is a society.So far as societies are concerned,for the purpose of initial grant of permits,they can get a permit only subject to what is stated in the proviso to S.71(1 ).That provision reads as follows: 71.Procedure of Regional Transport Authority in considering application for stage carriage permit. -(i)a Regional Transport Authority shall,while considering an application for a stage carriage permit,have regard to the objects of this Act: Provided that such permit for a route of fifty kilometres or less shall be granted only to an individual or a State Transport under taking."

(3.) THE contention was not accepted by the learned Single Judge,who decided the case now under appeal as also the learned Judges who decided the same principle in Krishna Das's case 1991(2)KLT 203(supra ).The only difference is that in Krishna Das's case 1991(2)KLT 203(supra ),the applicant was an individual and a different type of restriction for grants of permits,namely,the one contained in S.71(4)came in the way of the applicant who was seeking renewal,while,in the case before us,the restriction in S.71(1)of the New Act is coming in the way of the society for grant of renewal.The learned Judges in Krishna Das's case(1991(2)KLT 203 )(supra)took the view that even if such restrictions were not there at the stage of grant when the Old Act of 1939 was in force,however,after the New Act,the restrictions imposed by the New Act of 1988,apply at the stage of the applications for renewal.The learned Judges also referred to S.217 of the New Act,while dealing with this question and held that S.217(2 )(a)contains the words so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions 'of the New Act.We are in agreement with the view expressed by the Division Bench in Krishna Das's case 1991(2)KLT 203(supra ).