STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY KERALA Vs. NALLAPPA TRANSPORTS POLLACHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We think the learned Judge was right and his judgment has only to be affirmed. The State Transport Authority, in the first instance, by Ext. P1 order, and the State Transport Appellate Tribunal on revision, by Ext. P4 order, found that the denial of extension of the route from Wadakkancherry to Trichur, in continuation of the existing route Pollachi - Wadakkancherry, was justified, as the proviso to S.48(3)(xxi) of the Motor Vehicles Act was attracted; and the same did not empower an extension of a route by more than 24 kilometres. It was on this only ground that they refused to sanction the extension. The criterion of public interest was found in favour of the operator. The learned Judge before whom the matter came up on a writ petition by the writ petitioner/ respondent, found on the strength of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sri Ram Vilas Service Ltd. v. Raman & Raman (P) Ltd. ( AIR 1968 SC 748 ) that the power under the proviso to S.48(3)(xxi) cannot get automatically attracted, but will be available only if the same had been specifically incorporated in the permit granted to the writ petitioner/respondent. In view of the provisions in Ext, P3 permit, which is the relevant permit concerned in this case, the learned Judge was of the view that the said power had not been incorporated in the permit, and therefore the authority was not within its jurisdiction in refusing sanction for the extension. The writ petition was allowed.

(2.) S.48(3) Clauses (i) and (xxi) of the Motor Vehicles Act may conveniently be noticed:

(3.) On the above exposition of the Supreme Court, it is plain that the power conferred by S.48(3)(xxi) of the Act, even after amendment, is exercisable only if a condition to that effect is incorporated in the permit. It was also stressed by the Supreme Court that the permit in question contained only a condition prior to the amendment of the Act by Act III of 1964. In such circumstances, it was held that there was no limitation on the powers of the R. T. A., in respect of the grant of the application for variation of the route.