VISWAMBARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner operated a regular stage carriage on the route Moonupeedia - Anapuzha in Thrissur District. As per Ext. P1, permit was valid up to 16-4-2007. Petitioner submitted an application for replacement of his existing vehicle. The said application was rejected by the second respondent as per Ext.P3 order on the premise that the vehicle which was sought to be replaced is a later model vehicle than the vehicle which is offered for replacement. Ext.P3 has been challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) I do not propose to consider the correctness of the reasons contained in Ext.P3. The only question to be considered is whether Ext.P3 order is passed by an authority who has jurisdiction to do so. Section 83 of the Motor Vehicle Act reads as follows:

(3.) I have heard the learned Government pleader. I find substance in the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. No doubt going by the provisions of General Clauses Act, the power to make a grant will include the power to refuse a grant also. But this general provision is subject to any specific provision that provides for the contra. Rule 133 permits the transport authority to delegate certain of its powers to the Secretary. It was perfectly open to the rule making authority to provide for delegation of the power available to the RTA under Section 83 of the Act to be delegated in its entirety to the Secretary RTA. But the rule making authority has specifically authorised delegation of the power otherwise available to the RTA under Section 83 of the Act to the grant of replacement of one vehicle by another. This restriction on the extent of power delegated seems to be a conscious one, as one could see from Rules 133(1)(a), (c), (d), (e), (g), (j) and (k). Therefore the power delegated is restricted to the power to al low replacement of one vehicle by another. In other words, the Secretary R.T.A as the delegatee is not empowered to reject an application under Section 83 of the Act seeking replacement of one vehicle by another. He can consider the application. He can allow the same. It is open to him to place an application before the RTA which of course is competent to deal with it in terms of Section 83 of the Act. But, he cannot reject the same.