RAMACHANDRAN Vs. RTA CANNANORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short point that arises for consideration in this case is whether a Regional Transport Authority can grant a temporary permit even on the basis of a direction issued by the State Transport Appellate tribunal in a Motor Vehicles Appeal against the rejection of an application for a temporary permit by the Regional Transport Authority, when applications for a pucca permit on the same route submitted in response to a Notification inviting applications are pending, in view of the first proviso to S. 62 (1) of the Motor vehicles Act, 1939, for short the Act. The application for the temporary permit was also submitted in response to an earlier Notification inviting applications for a temporary permit on the route.

(2.) IN response to a Notification inviting applications for a temporary stage carriage permit on the route Thottumrnal-Edayilpeedika via Chonadam, Tellicherry New Bus Stand, Saidappally and Madapeedika issued by the 1st respondent-Regional Transport Authority, Cannanore the petitioner, the

(3.) SHRI V. Sivaraman Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that Ext. P-4 grant is hit by the first proviso to S. 62 (1) of the Act as the applications for a new permit on the very same route submitted in pursuance of Ext. P-1 Notification were actually pending before the 1st respondent when the grant was made. Learned counsel further contends that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal ought not to have given a direction for the grant of a temporary permit by Ext. P-3 judgment because on 30-8-1976 when the judgment was pronounced applications for a new permit under S. 46 of the Act on the same route were pending. According to the learned counsel, even if a direction was made without knowing the pendency of the applications for the new permit the direction cannot be sustained in view of the first proviso to S 62 (1) of the Act. In support of his contentions learned counsel refers to p. C. Velayudhan v. C. L. Varkey (1966 KLT. 347), Scaria v. Regional Transport authority, Alleppey (1966 KLT. 954) and P. K. Transport v. C. W. M. S. Ltd. (1967 KLT. 650 ).