DAVIS Vs. R T A TRICHUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Exts. P3 order and P5 communication by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority. Petitioner submitted an application for regular permit. Petitioner stated in the application that he could offer the vehicle KRG 1050 or any other suitable vehicle for the grant of permit. Application was rejected by the R.T.A. stating that the vehicle is already covered by a valid permit. Petitioner filed an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal. While allowing the appeal the Tribunal stated as follows: -

(2.) According to the petitioner, subsequently he got possession of a later model vehicle. Ext. P4 is a Certificate of Registration. Petitioner has made a request to the respondents to issue a permit in respect of the later model vehicle. Request was rejected by the first respondent vide Ext. P5 letter dated 8.9.1998. According to the Secretary, R.T.A., the S.T.A.T. granted the permit subject to the production of records of vehicle within the statutory period after surrendering the existing permit. Therefore, the first respondent directed the petitioner to produce the records of stage carriage KRG 1050 for the issue of permit granted by the third respondent.

(3.) Petitioner is aggrieved by those orders. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has offered a later model vehicle since vehicle KRG 1050 could not be made available. Secretary, R.T.A. returned the records in respect of the later model vehicle. Counsel for the petitioner relied on S.83 of the Motor Vehicles Act stating that the Secretary, R.T.A. could issue permit to a later model vehicle. I am not prepared to accept that contention of the counsel. Petitioner is bound by the order passed by the S.T.A.T. I am of the view that before granting a permit, petitioner is bound to furnish the details of the vehicle to be offered for regular permit. The vehicle offered by the petitioner is KRG 1050. According to the petitioner since he has stated "or any other suitable vehicle", S.T. A.T is bound to grant permit to any other suitable vehicle. I am of the view that this contention cannot be accepted. Petitioner is bound to give the details of the vehicle before granting the permit by the R.T.A. or S.T.A.T. as the case maybe. In the instant case, the vehicle offered by the petitioner is KRG 1050. Further according to me, S.83 of the Motor Vehicles Act is not applicable to this case. S.83 deals with Replacement of Vehicles. The holder of a permit may with the permission of the authority by which the permit was granted, replace any vehicle covered by the permit by any other vehicle of the same nature. This power is only vested on the R.T.A. This power has not been deleted under S.133 of the Motor Vehicles Act to the Secretary, R.T.A.