BALAJI MOTORS Vs. RTA TRICHUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN both these cases the same petitioner, a bus operator challenges the grant of temporary permits. IN both cases two temporary permits each are granted. The routes in the two cases are different. The attack in these cases are similar, for, the reasons for grant of temporary permits mentioned in the orders in the two cases are similar. That is only this: "traffic on this route has considerably increased and there is need to have two temporary permits on the route. " in one case and "traffic on this route has considerably increased. To meet the immediate requirements, two T. Ps on this route are sanctioned". in the other. The petitioner relies on the decision of this court in Govindan v. R. T. A. Cannanore, 1972 KLT 242 to challenge the grant of this permit, for, according to counsel what is stated is not a temporary need and therefore the grant would not be proper. Apparently what has been said in that decision applies to the facts of this case and therefore I would not have felt a further discussion was called for. The situation has been discussed in detail in that decision. But Sri. Neelakanta Menon, counsel for one of the respondents in these petitions very vehemently argues that the facts of this case could be distinguished from the case in Govindan v. R. T. A. Cannanore, 1972 KLT 242. According to him what was held in that decision was only that "to meet the present rush of traffic" is not a temporary need. This court in that context said "to refer to 'the present rush of traffic' is certainly not to refer to a particular need. The mere qualification of the rush of the traffic as 'present' does not indicate that the rush of traffic is temporary or that there will not be continued rush of traffic in future. " There is no case that in the cases before me the Regional transport Authority has taken any decision that there is permanent need for pucca permits in the route. That is not reflected in the orders nor is it stated to be the case. May be that in due course of time there may develop a pucca need and even then it does not mean that a temporary need must co-exist. What the Supreme Court said in M. P. S. R. T. Corpn. v. R. T. Authority, AIR. 1966 S. C. 156 was only that a temporary need could co-exist with a permanent need. The Supreme Court said "there is no antithesis between a particular temporary need and a permanent need and it is manifest that these two kinds of need may co-exist on a particular route. " Reference was particularly made in the case to S. 62 clause (d) of the Motor Vehicles Act which illustrates the case of a temporary need co-existing with the permanent need when temporary permit is issued during the pendency of consideration of an application for renewal of permit. There may be similar cases where existence of temporary need when there is permanent need too cannot be ruled out, and it cannot be postulated that wherever there is a permanent need there cannot be any temporary need. That is the rule stated by the Supreme Court. Reference to that decision in the passage in Joseph v. Senapathi,1970 KLT 1102 by a Division Bench of this Court in Para. 4 of its judgment, to which my attention was drawn does not also is any way advance the case of the contesting respondents. My attention has also been invited to an unreported decision of my learned brother Eradi J. in O. P. 988 of 1973. There again the learned judge was only adopting the views expressed by the Supreme Court in m. P. S. R. T. Corpn. V. R. T. Authority, AIR. 1966 S. C. 156. That was a case where, after finding the need for pucca permits and pending further proceedings in respect of the same, a temporary permit was issued. That was upheld on the ground that if there was temporary need the fact that pucca need bad been found cannot be a bar. That is a principle entirely different from the principle with which I am concerned in this case.

(2.) ON the facts before me, there is no material other than that the grant of temporary permits is sought to be justified on the basis that there is increased traffic on the route. If even 'present rush of traffic' cannot be a temporary need, I fail to see bow increase of traffic could be a temporary need.