JOHNSON Vs. RTA TRICHUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that has come up for consideration in these cases is whether the Regional Transport Authority could issue regular permit in respect of a vehicle already covered by a permit.

(2.) Petitioner in O.P. 7925/99 made an application for regular permit for five years to operate his vehicle KER 2991 on a particular route. The said application was rejected by the R.T.A. on 25.1.99 stating that the vehicle offered was already covered by a regular permit on the route Kalluthy - Nayathodu. In O.P. 7586/99 also the R.T.A. rejected the application holding that the vehicle offered by the petitioner therein was also covered by a valid permit. Counsel for petitioner Sri. Santhosh Kumar contended that there is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act or Rules so as to restrain the Regional Transport Authorities from issuing permit to a vehicle which is already covered by another permit. According to him it is always possible for an operator to surrender the permit as and when necessary. His contention is that if permit sought for is denied vehicle could be operated on the strength of a validly covered permit or else the vehicle will be off the road putting travelling public to considerable difficulties. Reference was made to R.159(2) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules and contended that 30 days time has already granted by the statute to produce the current records which could be extended for another four months. The said provision would indicate, according to the counsel for petitioners that he could surrender the permit within the said period and produce the vehicle. Therefore, according to the counsel only when the permit is issued the vehicle should not be covered by another permit.

(3.) Government Pleader Sri. N. Raghu Raj contended that the crucial time to consider whether a permit could be issued is when the application comes up for consideration before the R.T.A. R.159(2) speaks of only production of certificate of registration and other details and no case of surrender of permit. According to him, the R.T.A. is justified in rejecting the application since the vehicle offered by the petitioner was already covered by valid permit.