DAMODARAN Vs. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate order quashing Ext.P -4 order passed by the R.T.A .,Alleppey,the 1 st respondent,granting a temporary permit to the 2 nd respondent on the route Kanjikuzhi to Poochakkal.The 2 nd respondent had applied for a temporary permit and a permit was granted to him under Ext.P -3 order for the period from 5th April 1966 to 25 th April 1966.The grant was made by the Secretary to the R.T.A.Thereafter,the 2 nd respondent applied by Ext.R -1 on 15 th April 1966 for a permit in the route Muhamma -Poochakkal and in pursuance to this application,the R.T.A.has passed Ext.P -4 order granting a temporary permit on the route Kanjikuzhi -Poochakkal for a period of four months.

(2.) ONE attack of the petitioner against this grant is that the R.T.A.has no jurisdiction to grant a temporary permit in respect or a route not specified in the application.The petitioner's counsel also submitted,on the basis of the recital in Ext.P -4 order,that a temporary permit was granted to the second respondent for the period from 1 st May 1966 to 5 th May 1966,on the basis of Ext.P -5 application,which specified the period for which the per­mit was applied for as 1 st May 1966 to 5 th May 1966,that there was no subsequent application by the 2 nd respondent to the R.T.A.for issue of any further permit,that as Ext.P -4 grant is for a period of 4 months,the order is invalid,as no permit for a period not applied for could be granted by the R.T.A.As a matter of fact,it is clear from the records that no temporary permit was granted to the second respondent for the period from 1 st May 1966 to 5 th May 1966.The recital in Ext.P -4 order that such a grant was made is wrong.It would seem that the 2 nd respondent filed Ext.P -5 applica­tion for a permit for the period from 1 st May 1966 to 5th May 1966 on 23 rd April 1966.But nothing seems to have been done on that application.The application,in pursuance to which Ext.P -4 order was passed,is marked as Ext.R -1 and that application specified the period for which the permit was applied for as 25 th April 1966 to 24 th August 1966.Therefore,there is no substance in the contention of counsel that the permit has been granted for a period not applied for.The other submission of counsel is that even assuming that Ext - R -1 is the basis for the grant under Ext - P -4,the permit has been granted in respect of a route not applied for under Ext.R -1 and therefore the grant is invalid,I do not think that there is any substance in this contention either,for the reason that it is open to the R.T.A.to grant a permit in respect of a curtailed route.Section 48 of the Motor Vehicles Act,Act 4 of 1939,no doubt,says that no permit shall be granted in respect of a route not applied for but I do not think that,if an application is made for a permit on a longer route,the R.T.A is precluded from granting the permit for a shorter route comprised in the longer route specified in the application

(3.) THEN the submission of counsel for the petitioner was that there was no particular temporary need justifying the grant of a temporary permit under section 62.The 2 nd respondent's counsel,on the other hand,submitted that by Ext.R -3 the Principal of the N.S.S.College had requested the Collector,the Chairman of the R.T.A .,to introduce a bus in this route for the purpose of cater­ing to the needs of the students,who were studying in the College.In Ext.R -3 letter,this is what the Principal has stated: