M/s. Mayilvahanam Travels vs R.T. A. Malappuram and Others

U. L. Bhat, J.—Exts. P7 and P8 orders of 3rd respondent, State Transport Appellate Tribunal are challenged herein under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Copy of the original petition has been served on the learned Liaison Officer. Fourth respondent has appeared through counsel. First respondent, R. T. A., Malappuram issued pucca permit on the Parappanangadi-Kadampuzha temple route to the 4th respondent and another. Subsequently the 4th respondent applied for extension of the route up to Mulayankavu, a place situated within Palghat District. It is stated that the extension sought is for a distance of 24 kms. out of which 13.4 kms lies within Palghat District. Application was notified calling for objections. The petitioner was one of the objectors. R. T. A., Malappuram sought concurrence of R. T. A., Palghat. R. T. A., Palghat refused concurrence as per Ext. P3 order. No appeal has been filed against this decision. In pursuance to this decision the first respondent rejected the 4th respondent''s application under Ext. P4 order. Fourth respondent has filed an appear against Ext. P4 order and the same is pending. Later he filed suo motu application before the first respondent seeking the issue of a temporary permit for 20 days on the extended route. He also filed O. P. No. 10592/84 complaining of non-disposal of the application. The original petition was disposed of by this Court under Ext. P5 directing an expeditious disposal of the application for temporary permit for 20 days. Thereafter the Secretary to the R. T. A., Malappuram, second respondent, considered the application for temporary permit for 20 days and rejected the same for the reasons mentioned in Ext. P6. The 4th respondent filed an appeal before the S. T. A. T., Ernakulum challenging Ext. P6 order without impleading the objector, the present petitioner. The 4th respondent also filed M. P. No. 49/85 before the Tribunal seeking a direction to the second respondent to issue a temporary permit for 20 days. After hearing the appellant the Tribunal ordered notice and issued a direction as prayed for as per Ext. P7 order. Thereafter the petitioner herein filed two applications before the Tribunal, one for impleadment and other to vacate the interim order. The petitioner was impleaded but M. P. No. 68/85 seeking to vacate the interim order has been rejected under Ext. P8 order.

Section 63 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, the Act) deals with validation of permits for use outside region in which granted. With reference to the power of R. T. As sub-section (1) of Section 63 states that except as otherwise prescribed, a permit granted by the R. T. A. of one region shall not be valid in any other region, unless the permit has been countersigned by the R. T. A. of the other region. This rule has exceptions as contemplated in the provisos to sub-section (1). Sub-section (4) of Section 63 states that the R T. A. of one region may issue a temporary permit under clause (a) or (c) of sub-section (1) to section 62 to be valid in another region with the concurrence, given generally or for the particular occasion of the R. T. A. of that other region. In other words what the provisions of the section contemplate is that subject to the exceptions provided therein, the R. T. A. of one region cannot grant a permit to be valid within the jurisdiction of another R T. A., except with the countersignature or concurrence as the case may be of the latter.

The scheme of this provision is effectuated in Rules 203 and 203A of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules (for short, the Rules.) Rule 203 states that a temporary permit granted by a R. T. A. shall be valid in any other region of the State without countersignature by the R. T. A. of the other region in the cases provided therefor, namely where a temporary permit is granted under clause (a) or (c) of Section 62 of the Act for a period not exceeding 20 days; where a temporary permit under clause (c) of Section 62 of the Act for a period exceeding 20 days and under clause (b) of Section 62 of the Act is granted to a contract carriage or a public carrier or a private carrier; where a temporary permit under clause (c) of Section 62 of the Act for a period exceeding 20 days and under clause (b) of Section 62 of is granted to a stage carriage, provided that prior concurrence of the Regional Transport Authority or Regional Transport Authorities concerned shall have been obtained for the issue of the temporary permit but such concurrence shall not be necessary for the grant of a temporary permit to perform substitute service; and where a temporary permit is granted under clause (d) of Section 62 of the Act, provided that the permit in respect of which application for renewal is pending is renewable under the Rules without countersignature. Rule 203 A deals with grant of regular permits for other regions without countersignature.

Section 63 of the Act and Rule 203 of the Rules have to be read together and consistently with each other. The principle is that the R. T. A. of one region cannot issue a valid permit in regard to a route which lies partly within the jurisdiction of another R. T. A. without the countersignature or concurrence of the latter. The principle is well-founded because it is only the R. T. A. of that region which can assess the need, the condition of the road and other relevant circumstances vis-a-vis that region. That is why the countersignature or concurrence of the R. T. A. of the other region is insisted upon except in special circumstances contemplated by Rule 203 of the Rules. A short term permit for a period not exceeding 20 days is required to be issued in the interests of the public. To insist in such a case on countersignature of concurrence of the R. T. A. of the other region would be unrealistic and self-defeating. There may be administrative delay in granting concurrence and such delay would prevent a temporary permit for a period not exceeding 20 days being issued within a reasonable time. It is to avoid such and other contingencies that the rule making authority framed rule 203. The period for which the permit is sought is so short and the nature of the need and other circumstances are such that the R. T. A. cannot wait for the R. T. A. of the other region to grant countersignature or concurrence. The rule proceeds on the basis that in such special circumstances, the R.T.A. of the other region could grant concurrence if sought, but the issue of the permit cannot brook any delay. However to issue series of successive permits for 20 days, one after the other under the shelter of rule 203 so as to get over the provision in Section 63 (1) of the Act would be wholly inappropriate; that would amount to defeating the legislative object and abuse of statutory power. Similarly, R. T. A. must be slow to issue temporary permit for 20 days when it has reason to believe that the concurrence of the R. T. A. of the other region cannot be presumed.

Whether the Secretary to the R. T. A, was justified in" refusing to issue a temporary permit for 20 days is a matter for the Tribunal to consider in the appeal before the Tribunal. The appeal itself was filed without the objector on the party array, though the objector subsequently got himself impleaded. By an interlocutory application the Tribunal was called upon to direct Secretary to R. T. A. to do an act which he had refused to do. Of course the Tribunal has always the power to pass appropriate interlocutory orders to secure the ends of justice. It is not a question of lack of power, it is a question of propriety. What the statutory Body refused was issue of a temporary permit for 20 days. The legality of that action was under consideration by the Tribunal. At that stage the Tribunal issued an ex parte order directing the statutory Body to issue a temporary permit for 20 days. With the passing of the inter locutory order, the appellant has been granted the relief claimed in the appeal and nothing further remains to be done in the appeal The ex parte order has really the effect of granting the relief claimed in the appeal, without hearing and disposing the appeal. The Tribunal should not ordinarily pass such orders. Though I am inclined to take the view that interim direction of the Tribunal in this case is not in order, question is whether this Court should intervene in the exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order is only an inter locutory order. Ordinarily in the case of such an inter locutory order, particularly of of a very limited effect and which does not prejudice the legal rights of any other, this Court would be reluctant to intervene. For this reason and this reason alone I refrain from interfering with the interim order of the Tribunal. I also make it clear that the operational experience which the 4th respondent may gain on the strength of any temporary permit that may be issued shall not be counted in its favour for any purpose. The original petition is thus disposed of but in the circumstances without costs.

Issue carbon copies of the judgment to petitioner and 4th respondent on usual terms.