Musthafa vs R.T.A., Malappuram

M.R. Hariharan Nair, J.—The question that arises for consideration is whether for grant of an application by a stage carriage operator seeking change of halting place coming within the area of sister Authority, concurrence of that Authority cannot be insisted upon.

The petitioner holds a regular permit to operate from Kozhikode to Trichur with halting place at Tirur. In Ext. P2 the variation sought for by the petitioner was to change the halting place from Tirur to Trichur and to avoid the trip between Edarikode to Tirur which actually is a deviation from the main route. The primary Authority, who is the first respondent considered the request in its meeting held on 13.6.2000 and decided as follows:

Heard, adjourned, seek concurrence of sister R.T.As.

According to Mr. Gopinathan Nair, Counsel who represent the petitioner, no concurrence is required for the grant of Ext. P2 insofar as the curtailment is with regard to the area coming within the jurisdiction of the first respondent itself.

I have heard to learned Government Pleader, who relied on Section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, according to which an application to vary the conditions of permit also will require the concurrence of the sister Authority and what is involved here is a variation regarding condition of permit insofar as the halting place is to be changed.

It is true that u/s 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act an application for varying terms of a regular permit will have to be treated as an application for a new permit if it involves ''inclusion of a new route or routes or a hew area'' or ''alteration of routes or area'' or involves ''increase in the number of trips'' or if it deals with ''variation, extension of curtailment of the route or routes'' or of the ''area specified in the permit''. In the instant case, there is certainly curtailment of the route as regards the portion from Edarikode to Tirur, which comes within the area of operation of the first respondent besides change of halting place. The further question as whether prior concurrence of the R.T.A., Trichur is necessary for allowing the variation once the application is treated as one for new permit.

Rule 171 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules reads as follows:

Grant of regular permit for other regions without counter-signature.

(1) The Regional Transport Authority of any one region may, subject to the provisions of Section 72 of the Act, grant a permit, other than a permit referred to in Rule 170 to be valid in any other region or regions in this State without the counter-signature of the Regional Transport Authority or Regional Transport Authorities of the other region or regions concerned, and shall, as soon as possible, send a copy of the proceedings relating to the issue of such permit to the State Transport Authority.

(2) The Regional Transport Authority granting a stage carriage permit under Sub-rule (1) shall, before granting the permit obtain the concurrence of the Regional Transport Authority or Regional Transport Authorities of the other region or regions concerned.

(3) The provisions of Sub-rule (2) shall apply also in the case of variation of the conditions of a stage carriage permit either by the inclusion of a neio route or routes or a new area in any other region or regions, or the exclusion of any such route or routes or area.

As seen from the above, Rule 171(2) of the Motor Vehicles Rules, which insists on prior concurrence of sister Authority would apply, in the case of variation, only where there is variation of the conditions of stage carriage permit either by the inclusion of new route or routes or a new area in any other region or regions, or the exclusion of any such route or routes or area. In the instant case, as regards the area of R.T.A., Trichur the only change is as regards halting place. That does not come within the scope of Rule 171(3) aforementioned and as such prior concurrence of R.T.A., Trichur is not necessary under Rule 171. The curtailment of route is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the R.T.A., Malappuram. Viewed from that perspective, the R.T.A. was not right in insisting on concurrence of sister R.T.As. Ext. P3 is accordingly set aside and the first respondent is directed to consider Ext. P2 application independently and on the merits at the next meeting and in any event within a period of one month from the date on which a copy of this judgment is produced before it.