MOHAN DAS Vs. VISWANATHA MENON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Regional Transport Authority,Malappuram had decided at its meeting held on 28th March 1974 to invite applications for the grant of a temporary permit under section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1939(hereinafter called the Act)on the route Kalpakanchery -Calicut con­sequent on the demand of the students of Kalpakanchery,Thirurangady etc.The 1st respondent applied for the same and the R.T.A.who is the 2nd respondent herein granted the temporary permit in his favour.His vehicle was K.L.D.8103.He was operating on the above route subsequently also on the basis of successive temporary permits.

(2.) THE temporary permit so granted expired on 2nd July 1975.Earlier on 28th May 1975 the 1st respondent had applied for another temporary permit on the very same route.On 31st May 1975,he filed an application for a temporary permit on the route Calicut -Kadampuzha as an extension of the route Kalpakanchery -Calicut .,In that application,copy of which is marked as Ext,P -1 in this proceedings,it is noted as against the column Route [Area(s)] Calicut -Kadampuzha as an extension of the route Kalpakanchery -Calicut and halting the vehicle at Kadampuzha and touching Kalpakanchery in the morning and evening for the convenience of students.In the accompanying covering letter to the application,copy of which is marked herein as Ext,P -2,petitioner stated: Since one year I am operating the vehicle K.L.D 8103 on the route Kalpakanchery -Calicut.The vehicle is operating with great loss.To get it voyable I am requesting you to be kind enough to extend the vehicle up to Kadampuzha from Puthanathani touching Kalpakanchery in the morning and evening trips for the convenience of students.

(3.) THE petitioner who is a passenger service operator operating stage carriages in Calicut and Malappuram Districts and one of whose buses.K.L.D.9809 is plying on the route Calicut -Kadampuzha on the basis of a pucca permit granted by the 2nd respondent herein in 1970 took up the matter in appeal before the State Transport Appellate Authority,the 4th respondent as per the appeal memo marked as Ext.P -5 in the case.The 4th respondent rejected the appeal and upheld the grant by its judgment dated 27th November 1975 copy of which is marked as Ext.P -6 herein.The relevant portion of the judgment of the Tribunal is extracted below: It is seen that in the application filed by the 1st respondent,Intermediate stations are specifically mentioned.Intermediate stations between Calicut and Kadampuzha touching Kalpakancheri and between Kadampuzha -Calicut touching Kalpakan - cheri and the same and thus there is no difference in the route applied for or the route in respect of which the grant is made Moreover,it is seen that on 10th September 1975,the first respondent made a separate application for temporary permit to ply on the route Kadampuzha -Calicut touching Kalpakancheri.Thus the contention that the grant has been made on the basis of an improper application cannot be upheld. So far as the contention that there is no need in allowing extension of the route is concerned,it is seen that the application filed by the first respondent was sent for enquiry by the A.M.V.I .,Malappuram.The A.M.V.I.was directed to make an enquiry regarding the necessity for the issue of temporary permit as applied for and he conducted an enquiry and reported that there was real necessity for more services to Kadampuzha and that the extension of bus service from Kalpakancheri to Kadampuzha will serve better travelling facilities.It is also seen from the file produced by the second respondent that the President,Valavannur Panchayat wrote to the Secretary,R.T.A.Malappuram on 17 th July 1975.The letter is at page 31 of the file.In that letter,it was suggested that it would be convenient for the students if the bus starts from Kadampuzha and touches Kalpakancheri.It was in the light of the report of the A.M.V.I.and other representations that the R.T.A.decided to grant the permit.The R.T.A.found that there was necessity Mohan for this extension and also for the half of the vehicle at Kadampuzha.It was also found that the existing services on the route were not sufficient to cater to the needs of the pilgrims visiting Kadampuzha temple.It is seen that there art no buses halting at and starting from Kadampuzha in the morning and proceeding to Calicut.It is also seen that there is no clash of timings between the appellant's service and the service of the first respondent.It is not disputed that there is an interval of three hours between the starting time of the appellant's vehicle and the vehicle of the first respondent.The order granting the temporary permit has been made by the R.T.A .,Malappuram taking into consideration the report of the A.M.V.I and other representations of the Public and after satisfying that there was real temporary need for the grant of the permit,The objections of the appellant were also considered and there is absolutely no ground to interfere with the order of the R.T.A .,Malappuram.The appeal is therefore,dismissed.