A.Subbarathnamma vs Secretary

These petitions involving similar and akin issues, have been considered together and are taken up for final disposal by this common order, with the

consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

The petitioners in these writ petitions have challenged the orders/endorsements dated 13.03.2019 and 18.03.2019 passed by the Secretary, Regional

Transport Authority & RTO, Davanagere.

The petitioner in W.P.No.12971/2019 is the transferee of Stage Carriage Permit No.11/98-99 for the route from Chitradurga to Santhebennur and

back and Davanagere to Lokikere and back valid upto 16.11.2018 covered with the vehicle No.KA-17/B-0954.

The petitioner in W.P.No.13624/2019 is the holder of a Stage Carriage permit bearing No.20/03-04 valid till 22.07.2013 authorized to operate on the

route between Devarabelakere to Pavagada and back.

These petitioners have filed applications for renewal of their permit and pending renewal, have obtained temporary permit under Section 87(1)(d) of

the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘Act’ for short).

It is the contention of the petitioners that the said vehicles bearing Nos.KA-17/B-0954 and KA-17/C-9944 were not satisfactorily functioning, the

petitioners decided to change the vehicles and accordingly, they filed applications for release of the vehicles without replacing the vehicles placing

reliance on the Note provided under Rule 79 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (‘Rules’ for short). It is the grievance of the

petitioners that respondent â€" authority has rejected the request of the petitioners in violation of the Rules, more particularly ‘Note’ appended

to Rule 79 of the Rules. Hence, these writ petitions.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petitions would contend that the ‘Note’ provided to

Rule 79 of the Rules specifically makes it clear that the replacement of vehicle need not be with the substitution of any vehicle. Mere release or

removal of a vehicle presently covered under the permit is permissible and the respondent - authority has failed to consider this ‘Note’ as well

as Section 83 of the Act in a proper perspective while rejecting the request of the petitioners.

Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent â€" authority justifying the impugned orders/endorsements would submit that

Section 83 of the Act as well as ‘Note’ appended to Rule 79 of Rules would not permit the petitioners to release the vehicle without replacing

the vehicle. The replacement of vehicle shall be simultaneous with the release or removal of the vehicle covered under the permit.

I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on

record.

Section 83 of the Act reads thus:-

“Replacement of vehicles:- The holder of a permit may, with the permission of the authority by which the permit was granted, replace any vehicle

covered by the permit by any other vehicle of the same nature.â€​

Rule 79 of the Rules contemplates with the replacement of a vehicle covered by a permit. The Note appended to the said provision, on which

much emphasis has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner reads as under:-

“Note.- For the purpose of this rule, “Replacement of vehicle†means substitution of another vehicle in place of a vehicle presently covered in

the permit but does not include mere release or removal of a vehicle presently covered in the permit.â€​

A bare reading of these provisions makes it clear that both the provisions deal with the replacement of vehicles covered by a permit. The

replacement of vehicle is different from release of vehicle. As could be seen from the provisions aforesaid, the holder of a permit is entitled to replace

any vehicle covered by the permit by any other vehicle of the same nature. Replacement of vehicle consists of two events namely,

(i) release of the vehicle covered under the permit

(ii) substituted by other vehicle of the same nature. These two events must be synchronized at the same time. In other words, the vehicle covered

under the permit has to be substituted by the replaced vehicle. The ‘Note’ provided under the Rule 79 of the Rules clarifies this position. It

categorically indicates that replacement of vehicle does not include mere release or removal of a vehicle presently covered in the permit. Thus, mere

release or removal of a vehicle is not provided under the provisions of the Act and Rules. The interpretation of the ‘Note’ appended to Rule 79

of the Rules canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners goes against to the purpose and object of the Act and Rules, inasmuch as the

replacement of the vehicle.

The word “replaceâ€​ as found in the 21st Century Dictionary is quoted hereunder:-

“Replace:- to put something back in its previous position; to return something to its proper position; to take the place of or be a substitute for

someone or something. To supplant someone or something. To use or substitute another person or thing in place of an existing one.â€​

The word “replacement†employed by the legislature itself suggests that the vehicle covered under the permit has to be substituted by any

other vehicle. Even sub-rule 5 of Rule 79 would not come to the assistance of the petitioners since the said rule makes it clear that the existing vehicle

shall continue to operate under the permit, until a day prior to the date on which the replacement takes effect as provided in sub-rule (4) and the

replacer vehicle shall commence operation from the day so endorsed in the permit. Making of an application under this rule shall not confer any right

on the applicant to either stop operation of the existing vehicle or to start operation of the replacer vehicle unless an endorsement is made by the

Transport Authority under sub-Rule (4).

Viewed from any angle, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be countenanced and must fail.

For the aforesaid reasons, these writ petitions stand dismissed.

No order as to costs.