MANOHARAN Vs. R T A ERNAKULAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is an operator on the route Ernakulam-Kottayam. The third respondent applied for a temporary permit on the route Thalayolaparambu-Ernakulam. The R.T.A. granted permit to him. True copy of the permit is Ext. P1. It shows that the permit is issued for one year under the proviso to S.104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Ext. P2 is the true copy of the temporary permit issued by the Secretary to the third respondent. Petitioner has challenged Exts. P1 and P2 on the ground that the RTO has no power to issue a permit for more than four months. According to the petitioner, a temporary permit can be issued only under S.87 of the M.V. Act. Under S.87 of the Act, a temporary permit can be issued only for four months, when the conditions mentioned there exist S.87 appears in Chapter V of the M.V. Act, 1988. Ext. P1 permit, is issued under the proviso to S.104 of the Act. S.104 appears in Chapter VI of the M.V. Act, 1988. Chapter VI deals with the scheme for nationalisation with regard to the State Transport Undertakings. Once the scheme is implemented, the State Transport Undertaking has got the exclusive right to operate on the route. Then, no permit can be issued to a private operator.

(2.) S.104 of the Act states as follows:-

(3.) According to me, the temporary permit that is granted under S.104 of the M.V. Act is different from a temporary permit that is granted under S.62 of the M.V. Act, 1939. Under S.62, a temporary permit is granted only to meet certain contingencies when the operation of the vehicle is essential. S.104 speaks of the contingency when the State transport undertaking fails to obtain a permit with the result that operation of the service is necessary for the public. The proviso clearly states that permit is to last till the State transport undertaking applies for the permit. Hence, it cannot be said that the permit that is to be issued under the proviso to S.104 should not exceed 4 months.