S R RANGAIAH Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY CHITRADURGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner who was a permit holder bearing No. BP. 2/71-72 on the route Upperigenahally to Davanagere as a stage carriage operator held that permit up to 27-3-1977. He has admitted in his statement of the case that he could not apply for renewal of the permit from the aforementioned date within the time prescribed by Section 58 (2) and (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). His belated application was considered by the Ist respondent R. T. A. Chitradurga, in its Subject No. 56/1977 on 30-5-1977 and rejected the same on the sole ground that it was not filed within the time stipulated under Section 58 (2) and (3) of the Act. Aggrieved by the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority, the writ petitioner preferred an appeal to the 2nd respondent the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in appeal No. 559/1977. After hearing the appellant, the Presiding officer of the Tribunal dismissed the appeal relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Ashifaq v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U. P. in Civil Appeal No. 871 (N) of 1974, dated 10-9-1976: AIR1976 SC 2161 , (1976 )4 SCC330 , [1977 ]1 SCR563 . The relevant portion of the decision of the Supreme Court is as follows:

(2.) From the above it is clear, that the Regional Transport Authority had no jurisdiction to entertain the application of the writ petitioner for renewal of his permit, if it had been made beyond the periods mentioned in S. 58 (2) and (3) of the Act.

(3.) Shri P. R. Brirangaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that had the petitioner been given an opportunity to have his application published, then he would have had the advantage of being heard fully and there would have been no objection for the renewal of his permit. This may be so if the application was validly made and could be construed as one made in accordance with law. Since that is not the position, this argument of the learned counsel is of no avail.