RAJAGOPALA PRABHU Vs. GENERAL MANAGER K S R T C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Despite the strenuous argument advanced by Counsel for the appellant, we are satisfied that the reasoning and the conclusion of the learned Judge are correct and the judgment under appeal has to be affirmed.

(2.) The appellant challenged Ext. P6 order dated 3-6-1976 by the Secretary to the Regional Transport Authority, Trichur, granting a temporary permit to the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, under S.68-F(1-A) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The circumstances leading to the grant were briefly these. Ext. P1 notification dated 27-4-1976 had been issued by the Kerala State Road Transport undertaking for a scheme of nationalisation of the routes Trichur - Cranganore, and Kottapuram - Guruvayoor. The scheme was gazetted on 27-4-1976 inviting objections. This was followed by Ext. P2 order dated 13-5-1976 granting a temporary permit under S.68(CC) of the Act to the District Transport Officer, Trichur. The grant was quashed under Ext. P3 judgment dated 2nd June 1976 by a learned Judge of this Court, as it was admitted on all hands that the Secretary who issued Ext. P2 order had no power to issue the same and that the same had to be done by the Regional Transport Authority. The District Transport Officer presented Ext. P4 application for a temporary permit under S.68-F(1-A) of the Act, for the route Trichur - Azhikode via., Palakkal, Oorakam, Irinjalakuda, Kodungallure, covered by the routes proposed to be nationalised by Ext. P1. Ext. P5 is the copy of the covering letter that accompanied the application. By Ext. P6 - order of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, the temporary permit was granted. This was attacked before the learned judge on several grounds all of which were rejected, and the appellant's writ petition was dismissed.

(3.) Before us, the only ground urged against the validity of Ext. P6 order was that the power under S.68-F(1-A) to grant a temporary permit could not be exercised by the Secretary but only by the Regional Transport Authority and that the power was incapable of delegation, and had not in fact been delegated, to the Secretary. S.44(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, occurring in Chap.4 thereof, authorises the Regional Transport Authority by rules framed under S.68, to delegate such of its powers and functions to such authority or person as may be prescribed by the rules. S.62 is the Section dealing with the issue of temporary permits. Under S.68, clause (2)(aa), rules could be framed for the conduct of business by any Regional Transport Authority regarding the manner in which its business could be conducted. Under S.68-B, the provisions of Chap.4A are made transcendental, in the sense that the provisions of the Chapter and the Rules made thereunder, are to override every other provision or rule under the Act inconsistent therewith S.68-C provides for publication of a scheme for nationalisation of transport. S.68-D provides for objections to the scheme and S.68-F provides for consequences that follow the issuance of a nationalised scheme. Sub-section 1-A of the said Section reads: