A C LOUIS Vs. RTA KOTTAYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions directed against the same order, that passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam on 8-12-1976. By the said order a temporary permit in the route Palai - Vaikom (via) Marangattupally, Kuravilangad, Kuruppamthara was granted by the Regional Transport Authority to the second respondent in these cases. The petitioners in these Original Petitions had objected to such grant. The petitioner in O.P. 5706 of 1976 is an operator having a service in the Palai-Vaikom route. The petitioner in the other petition is the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. In addition to the question raised in O. P. 5706 of 1976 the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation has raised a further question as to the propriety of such grant for temporary permit in a route part of which is covered by a preliminary scheme of Nationalisation.

(2.) The common question urged in both the petitions is that the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam calls for interference for the reason that it has given no heed to the provisions of S.62(1) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act. It is not as if the scope of S.62(1) is a matter on which the courts have not spoken. Indeed this Court had on too many occasions while dealing with the orders passed by the Regional Transport Authorities indicated the true ambit and scope of S.62(1) of the Act and the need for exercise of a proper consideration in passing an order under that Section. S.62(1) clauses (a) to (d) deal with different situations and provides for grant of temporary permits for different reasons. S.62(1)(a) enables such grant to be made for the conveyance of passengers on special occasions such as to and from fairs and religious gatherings. S.62(1)(b) provides for such grant for the purpose of seasonal business. S.62(1)(c) provides for grant of temporary permit to meet a particular temporary need and sub-s.(d) of S.62(1) provides for such grant pending decision on an application for the renewal of a permit. That being the case it is necessary that the Regional Transport Authority should primarily apply its mind as to which of the sub clauses of sub-s.(1) of S.62 of the Act would apply to the case before it before granting a permit. That alone will enable it to consider the question of temporary need properly. Having done so it has to be satisfied that there is a need and that need is a particular as well as a temporary need. The existence of important institutions on a route may require more facilities for the travelling public and may justify provision for more services along the route. But that by itself cannot be said to be a particular temporary need, for, in such a case if the question is asked whether the need is permanent or temporary it would be incorrect to say that it is a temporary need. On the other hand there may be cases where the activities in places or institutions by the side of the route may cause temporary increases in the number of people travelling by that route, and there may then be need for providing additional service facilities but that would be temporary. A temporary need is therefore to be understood as different from a permanent need. This need not be taken to mean that a temporary need cannot co-exist with a permanent need. It may. There may be a permanent need without a temporary need. There may be a temporary need without a permanent need. There may be a temporary need and a permanent need. I am particularly referring to this to alert the Regional Transport Authorities to the fact that what has to be found in order to sustain the grant of a temporary permit is a temporary need. Courts have only said that because a permanent need is proved temporary need cannot be negatived.

(3.) Though the Court is not expected to scrutinise the orders of the Regional Transport Authorities minutely to see whether detailed reasons are shown to support their decisions, the minimum that is required in an order under S.62(1) is a positive finding of a temporary need and the statement of reasons which support that finding. The examination of the reasons would be limited in scope. That would be with a view to see whether the reasons are supported by any material on the file and whether the reasons are relevant.