Decided on February 21,1974



- (1.) A firm operating bus service on different routes is the petitioner herein. As per ext. P-6, the second respondent, R. T. A. , Trichur decided that there is real need and necessity for a direct bus service on the route Puthenve-likkara-Chalakudy touching Krishnan-kotta and on that basis the application for grant of temporary permit to operate service on that route put in by the third respondent was allowed. There were two applicants for temporary permits on that route, viz. , the third respondent and one Damodaran Pillai. The latter's application was rejected since he was absent. Ext. P-6 is challenged before me by the petitioner-firm.
(2.) THE main ground, in fact the only ground, raised before me is that Ext. P-6 does not mention any particular temporary need. It is argued that Ext. P-3 application filed by the third respondent does not mention any particular need as contemplated by Section 62 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. It is contended that Ext. P-6 is bad for these reasons, and that the case falls partly within the ambit of the decision of my learned brother, Poti, J in Govindan v. R. T. A. , cannanore, 1972 Ker LT 242 = (AIR 1972 Ker 243 ). It is argued on behalf of the third respondent that the second respondent was convinced of the fact that there was need and necessity for issue of permanent permits in respect of the route, and to meet the urgent need of the public for facilities of travel till pacca services are introduced Ext. P-6 temporary permit was issued. The decision of my learned brother Eradi, J. in 9. P. No. 988 of 1973 (Ker.) is relied on in support of this contention. Therein Eradi, J. relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in M. P. S. R. T. Corporation v. R. T. Authority, AIR 1966 SC 156, said:--"it is now beyond doubt in view of the pronouncement by the Supreme court in AIR 1966 SC 156 that the unsatisfied demand of the public for the provision of a stage carriage service pending the completion of proceedings for the grant of a pucca permit for regularly meeting a permanent need constitutes a temporary need under Clause (c) to section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act. " The learned Judge after examining the decision of the R. T. A. in that case in the light of the notings contained in the concerned file of the R. T. A. upheld the grant of temporary permit.
(3.) IN A. P. State Road Transport Corporation v. K. Venkitaramireddy (1970) 1 scwr 617 the Supreme Court said:- "in the application which was filed 'by the appellant for grant of the temporary permits in Form 32 which has been prescribed with reference to Rule 126 (a) (vi) of the Rules no purpose has been indicated against item No. 4 which requires the purposes to be indicated for which the stage carriage permit is required. A letter was addressed by the appellant to the Secretary, State Transport Authority, on August 24, 1966. Even in that letter the purpose or the reason for the issue of a temporary permit was not stated. In our opinion it is wholly futile to go into any of the points which were agitated before the learned single judge and the Division Bench or the High Court. There can be no manner of doubt that in the absence of any purpose or reason for which temporary permits were asked for the Regional Transport Authority should have dismissed the application in limine because a temporary permit can be granted only if the permit is required for the purpose or reasons mentioned from (a) to (d) in Section 62 of the Act. In spite of every effort on the part of the learned counsel for the appellant to look for any document which would fulfil the requirement of a valid application under Section 62 nothing could be shown to us which would indicate the purpose for which the appellant asked for the grant of a temporary permit. " This passage also indicates that the Court is entitled to take note of 'documents which will fulfil the requirement of a valid application under Section 62' of the Act.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.