BHOUMAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
STATE OF KERALA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The petitioner in this Original Petition reminds me of the photographer without a camera. He was granted a pucca permit for a stage carriage K.L.Q. 7721 on the Alumkadavu - Paracode route. The. vehicle was seized by the Thyagaraja Financiers, Madurai on 19th December 1971 for non payment of hire purchase instalments and the service on the above said route was continuously under default from that date. Subsequently, fresh registration certificate in respect of the vehicle was issued in favour of the hire purchase company. Even though the petitioner could not put any other vehicle on the road thereafter, he insists that his permit should be renewed for three years from 17th February 1973.
(2.) The petitioner was having a pucca stage carriage permit valid up to 16th February 1973 on the route Alumkadavu - Paracode in respect of the vehicle K.L.Q. 7721 owned by him. As the vehicle which was held under a hire purchase agreement with Messrs. Thyagaraja Financiers, Madurai was seized by them, the service on the route was continuously under default from 19th December 1971. After the seizure of the vehicle by the financier company, fresh registration certificate in respect of the vehicle was issued in their favour as provided in R.113(4) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1961 after complying with the procedural requirements in that respect. So, the petitioner who is the holder of the permit ceased to own the vehicle covered by the permit. Thereafter, by letter dated 2nd November 1972 the petitioner was asked to show cause why the permit of the vehicle should not be cancelled under S.60(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The petitioner in his explanation dated 17th November 1972 stated that he has made necessary arrangements for the procurement of a bus and requested for 4 months' time to produce the vehicle. Though the averment in para 8 of the Original Petition is that there was no default of service since a reserve bus was put on the road, this has been denied in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent, R.T.A., Quilon. What is seen from the files is also that the petitioner defaulted service from 19th December 1971 onwards. Soon after the notice for cancellation of the permit was issued, the petitioner submitted an application for renewal of the permit. The 3rd respondent, R.T.A., at its meeting held on 15th December 1972 considered the explanation of the petitioner dated 17th November 1972 for default of service and the application for renewal of the permit dated 15th November 1972 together and by Ext. P2 proceedings dated 15th December 1972 held that the explanation offered by the petitioner for default of service is not satisfactory. It was also decided that the application for renewal need not therefore be entertained. By Ext. P2 the 3rd respondent also decided to take steps for the issue of a fresh pucca permit.
(3.) Against Ext. P2, the petitioner, K. S. Bhouman filed appeal No. 26 of 1973 before the 2nd respondent State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam. The 2nd respondent by Ext. P1 judgment dated 24th August 1973 dismissed the petitioner's appeal. It is against Exts. P1 and P2 that the petitioner has approached this Court by this Original Petition. The main contention of the petitioner is that as long as the permit is not cancelled, the 3rd respondent is bound to renew the same. The default of service made by the petitioner cannot be a reason for refusing the renewal of the permit because, as per the provisions of the Act, an application for renewal of a permit is to be treated and disposed of as if it were an application for permit.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.