R K V MOTORS AND TIMBERS LTD Vs. RTA TRIVANDRUM
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
R.K.V. MOTORS AND TIMBERS LTD.
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The petitioner is the holder of a stage carriage permit in respect of KLT 3975 on the route Arysala Vamanapuram. The 3rd respondent is the holder of a similar permit in respect of KLT 7717 on the route Aryasala Valliaruppancaud. There is no serious dispute that the routes substantially overlap. The 3rd respondent had applied to the Regional Transport Authority, Trivandrum for revision of the timing in respect of Vehicle KLT 7717. on the route Aryasala Valliaruppancaud. By an order passed in revision by the State Transport Authority on 1-7-1967 the Regional Transport Authority was directed to "finally dispose of" the application. Thereafter by delegation, the matter was placed before the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority. The petitioner had objected to revision of the timings, Ext. P1 being a copy of the petitioner's objection. Ext. P3 is a copy of the order of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority. It gave revised timings to the 3rd respondent's stage carriage KLT 7717. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:
"Considering all the circumstances, J, the secretary of the Regional Transport Authority, Trivandrum, sanction tentatively the following timings to KLT 7717 (pursuant to the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority dated 29-8-1966 authorising me to dispose of the matter hearing the affected operators) to be effective from 20-12-1967."
I am not setting out the details and particulars of the revised timings fixed, as the same is unnecessary to the decision of this writ petition.
(2.) One of the objections raised by the petitioner's counsel to the impugned order Ext. P3 was that a revision of timings amounts to a variation of the conditions of the permit, and the same is therefore incapable of delegation by the Regional Transport Authority to its Secretary under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the Rules framed thereunder. The premise on which the absence of a power to delegate was rested, is concluded against the petitioner, by the Division Bench ruling in P. K. Karthikeyan v. Regional Transport Authority, Trichur ( 1965 KLT 1186 ) by which I am bound. This contention of the petitioner must therefore be rejected.
(3.) The main objection raised by the petitioner's counsel, to the impugned order was that neither the Regional Transport Authority nor its Secretary had any jurisdiction to "tentatively" sanction revised timings, as was done by the impugned order. That it had jurisdiction to give such "tentative" sanction was not seriously asserted on the side of the respondents. What was sought to be contended was that the order in question was not one "tentatively" sanctioning revised timings and that it had effectively and finally disposed of the 3rd respondent's application for revision of timings. Statedly, the impugned order purports to sanction only "tenantively" revised timings for the 3rd respondent's vehicle, and nothing has been made out before me to show that the apparent is not the real. A Division Bench of the Mysore High Court ruled in K. N. Srinivasdih v. The Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal (AIR 1952 Mysore 87) that there is no authority to tentatively sanction the revised timings.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.