Kerala High Court
Sheeba vs The Regional Transport Authority on 28 February, 2002
JUDGMENT R. Rajendra Babu, J.
1. The question for consideration is whether there can be a temporary variation of the regular permit. Petitioner, who is operating her stage carriage bearing Reg. No. KRD 6615 on the route Medical College Hospital - Meenchanda, filed this Original Petition for quashing Ext. P2 proceedings of the R.T.A., Kozhikode, dated 14th September, 2001 granting temporary variation to the third respondent in respect of his stage carriage bearing Reg. No. KRD 7738 operating on the route Railway Station-Medical College Hospital - Feroke. The third respondent filed an application for the grant of temporary variation by providing an additional trip, Medical College Hospital-City via Malapparamba. That was allowed by the R.T.A. by Ext. P2 proceedings. The above order is under challenge.
2. The third respondent filed a counter stating that he was operating his stage carriage bearing Reg. No. KRD 7738 on regular permit on the route Railway Station -Medical College Hospital- Feroke via Malapparamba and Civil Station, which was valid upto 18th February 2004. The above service would reach the Medical College Hospital at 5,44 p.m. and thereafter would leave from Medical College Hospital towards Feroke only at 7.05 p.m. The stage carriage had to be unnecessarily detained for one hour and 21 minutes at Medical College Hospital during the peak hours and hence the third respondent filed an application for the grant of four months temporary permit for utilising the above vacant timing without affecting the regular operation so as to take an additional trip from Medical College Hospital at 6.03 p.m. and to arrive back Medical College Hospital at 7.03 p.m. retaining the existing timings and after necessary enquiry the above application was allowed. The grant of temporary permit was advantageous to the travelling public and as such the above order was in accordance with law and hence cannot be interfered with.
3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the third respondent and the learned Government Pleader.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ext. P2 was an order granting temporary variation of a regular permit and there was no provision of law for granting any temporary variation and as such Ext. P2 order granting temporary variation was illegal and was liable to be quashed. The learned Counsel for the third respondent submitted that it was not the grant of temporary variation of regular permit, but the third respondent filed an application for the grant of temporary permit for four months for operating a trip between Medical College Hospital and City, as there was vacant time as per the timings issued in respect of the regular permit and as that was advantageous to the travelling public, the same was allowed. The learned Counsel for the third respondent relied on the decision of this Court in Balakrishna Travels v. R.T.O. Malappuram, 1982 KLT 752, wherein it was held that a temporary permit also can be granted while the vehicle was being operated on the strength of a regular permit, if the route covered by both permits are continuous. There it was held:
"The position will not be different in the case of a temporary permit by way of extension of an existing permit as the route on which the vehicle is proposed to be used will not include the route on which it was already used as per the existing permit. Temporary permit is for the new route on which it is proposed to use the vehicle. The grant of this permit will not in any way affect the continuance of the route the vehicle was already operating on the basis of the pucca permit. The effect of the grant is that the vehicle will operate on two routes, one on the basis of the pucca permit and the other on the basis of the temporary permit. What Section 62 of the Act which governs the grant of temporary permits insists is only that the time consuming procedure laid down in Section 57 for the grant of the permit (pucca permit) need not be followed in the case of the grant of a temporary permit."
In view of the above decision, I do not think that there is any bar for granting a temporary permit when the vehicle was having a valid regular permit to operate on a particular route, provided that the route covered by both permits should be continuous. In Komalam v. R.T.A., Ernakulam, 2002 (1) KLT 208 this Court held that a permit can be issued in respect of more than one route. A temporary permit can be issued under Section 87 of the Act when any of the grounds mentioned in Clauses (a) to (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 87 exists. Those are:
"xxxxx
(a) for the conveyance of passengers on special occasions such as to and from fairs and religious gatherings, or
(b) for the purpose of a seasonal business, or
(c) to meet a particular temporary need, or
(d) pending decision on an application for the renewal of a permit, and may attach to any "such permit such condition as it may think fit."
It was the consistent approach taken by this Court that a finding of an existing temporary need is a sine qua non for granting the temporary permit Prabhakaran v. Secretary, R.T.A., 1999 (1) KLT 117 and Mohanan v. R.T.A., 2000 (2) KLT 485. The contentions raised by the third respondent in the counter did not disclose any temporary need as provided under Section 87(1) of the Act, but he applied for the issue of temporary permit (according to him) on the ground that there was vacant time in the timings allotted in respect of the regular permit issued to him and he wanted to utilise the above vacant time to operate his vehicle from Medical College to City. The above ground mentioned for the grant of temporary permit was not a ground contemplated under any of the Clauses (a) to (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 87 of the Act and as such the temporary permit cannot be granted as contended in the counter.
5. Ext. P2 proceedings of the R.T.A. would clearly reveal that the application made by the petitioner was for temporary variation of the permit for four months and the above proposed variation was allowed holding that it was beneficial to the travelling public. The R.T.A. had considered the application as one for temporary variation of the permit and as the temporary variation was found to be advantageous to the traveling public, it was allowed. In fact, Ext. P2 order did not disclose that the application was one for the grant of temporary permit, but it would show that it was granted as a temporary variation of the regular permit. In view of the above order, the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the third respondent that the third respondent had applied for a temporary permit and it was granted cannot be accepted.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that temporary variation of a regular permit was not allowable as that was not contemplated under law and as such the temporary variation granted was illegal. Section 80 of the Act deals with the procedure for applying for and granting of regular permits. Sub-section (3) of Section 80 of the Act deals with the variation of the conditions of permit, which reads:
"An application to vary the conditions of any permit, other than a temporary permit, by the inclusion of a new route or routes or a new area or by altering the route or routes or area covered by it, or in the case of a stage carriage permit by increasing the number of trips above the specified maximum or by the variation, extension or curtailment of the route or routes or the area specified in the permit shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit."
An application to vary the conditions of permit filed under Sub-section (3) of Section 80 of the Act on the grounds mentioned therein would be treated as an application for the grant of new permit. When an application for variation under Sub-section (3) of Section 80 of the Act was made, the procedure contemplated for the grant of regular permit had to be followed as it would be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore v. B.A. Jayaram, AIR 1984 SC 790. It would further reveal that an application under Sub-section (3) can be made only in respect of regular permit as it specifically excludes temporary permits. Section 80 of the Act deals with the grant of regular permits whereas Section 87 deals with the grant of temporary permits. When Sub-section (3) of Section 80 of the Act, which deals with variation of regular permits, specifically excludes temporary permits and the application for variation under Sub-section (3) has to be treated as the grant of a new permit, the variation contemplated under Section 80(3) of the Act can only be regular variation of the regular permit. Such new permit cannot be treated as temporary permit, as the grant of temporary permit is governed by Section 87 of the Act. Thus, an application under Section 80(3) of the Act can only be for regular variation of regular permit and not a temporary variation of regular permit.
7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of this Court in G.B. Transports, Guruvayur v. R.T.A., Trichur, AIR 1960 Kerala 239, wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court held that there was no provision in the Act for allowing temporary variation of a permit. The same view was taken by Mr. K.K. Narendran, J. (as he then was) in Balakrishna Travels' case (supra). There it was held:
"According to me, there is nothing called a temporary variation of a pucca permit in motor vehicles law though a" temporary extension of a route covered by a pucca permit by the grant of a separate temporary permit is possible if the routes covered by the two permits are continuous".
I respectfully agree with the above approach made by my learned brother Judges. As the application was one for the grant of temporary variation of regular permit and the grant also was for temporary variation of the permit, Ext. P2 order cannot be said to be in accordance with law and as such it is liable to be quashed.
In the result, this Original Petition is allowed. Ext. P2 proceedings of the R.T.A., Kozhikode (second respondent) granting temporary variation of regular permit is quashed.