Shahul Hameed vs R.T.A.

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.—Petitioner is a stage carriage operator on a regular permit on the route Guruvayur-Kozhikode. He was operating his vehicle as limited stop ordinary service. Permit was covered by a stage carriage KL-8/A 7695. Regular permit in respect of the said vehicle expired on 5-5-1998. Petitioner submitted an application for renewal of the permit. Being an inter-district route, concurrence has to be obtained from sister authorities, i.e. Regional Transport Authority, Kozhikode and Trichur, before renewing the same. According to the petitioner that procedure is yet to be completed. Petitioner, in the meanwhile, submitted an application before the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram, for a temporary permit pending renewal of the regular permit. Application was preferred under Sec. 87(1)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Temporary permit was sought for stage carriage No. KL-7/T 7353, a 1997 model vehicle. Even though it was an inter-district route, Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram, issued temporary permit on 3-7-1998 for a period of four months, which expired on 5-11-1998. According to petitioner, he submitted yet another application on 21-10-1998 for temporary permit for another four months. Petitioner submitted that the said application was found to be missing in the office of the Secretary, and consequently he filed yet another application on 13-11-1998, which was rejected by the Secretary vide Ext. P3 order dated 13-11-1998 stating that application cannot be entertained since regular permit in respect of stage carriage KL-8/A 7695 has already expired on 5-5-1998. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner has approached this Court.

According to petitioner, Ext. P3 order cannot be sustained. Counsel submitted that Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, is bound to consider the application for temporary permit in accordance with Sec. 87(1)(d) of the Act, pending decision on application for renewal of regular permit. Counsel also referred to a decision of this court in Hasan Kunju v. R.T.O., Palakkad, (1997) 1 KLT 476.

Learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted that petitioner did not submit the application for renewal in time. According to learned Government Pleader, petitioner submitted the application for renewal only on 2-5-1998. This fact is not disputed by counsel for the petitioner. Learned Government Pleader further submitted that petitioner should have filed the application 15 days prior to the date of expiry of the regular permit. Therefore there was delay in submitting the application, and hence there is no proper application pending before the authority. Learned Government Pleader further submitted that temporary permit also cannot be given to the petitioner by the Secretary, since no proper application is pending. Learned Government Pleader also submitted that since the route is an inter-district route, Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, has no jurisdiction to issue a permit without getting concurrence or counter signature from the Regional Transport Authorities of Kozhikode and Trichur.

I heard Smt. Sumathi Dandapani, counsel for the petitioner, and Sri. N. Reghu Raj, Government Pleader. The period of the regular permit of the petitioner''s vehicle expired on 5-5-1998. The primary authority which issued the permit is the Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram: Before renewing the permit, primary authority has to obtain concurrence or counter signature from the Regional Transport Authorities of Kozhikode and Trichur. In the instant case, the main question to be considered is whether there is any proper application for renewal pending consideration before the primary authority. As I have already mentioned, even though the period of regular permit expired on 5-5-1998 petitioner submitted the application for renewal only on 2-5-1998. Therefore the question to be considered is whether there is any proper application pending before the primary authority so as to renew the permit. Section 81 of the Act deals with duration and renewal of permits. Section 81 is extracted below:

"81. Duration and renewal of permits.--(1) A permit other than a temporary permit issued under Sec. 87 or a special permit issued under sub-section (8) of Sec. 88 shall be effective without renewal for a period of five years.

Provided that where the permit is countersigned under sub-section (1) of Sec. 88, such counter signature shall remain effective without renewal for such period so as to synchronise with the validity of the primary permit.

(2) A permit may be renewed on an application made not less than fifteen days before the date of its expiry.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), the Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority, as the case may be, may entertain an application for the renewal of a permit after the last date specified in that sub-section if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by good and sufficient cause from making an application within the time specified.

Under Sec. 81 (4) a Regional Transport Authority may reject an application for the renewal of a permit on one or more of the grounds enumerated therein. Under Sec. 81 (5) where a permit has been renewed under Sec. 81 after the expiry of the period thereof, the said renewal shall have effect from the date of such expiry irrespective of whether or not a temporary permit has been granted under clause (d) of Sec. 87 and where a temporary permit has been granted, the fee paid in respect of such temporary permit shall be refunded.

The above is the position as far as regular permit is concerned. In the instant case, petitioner is aggrieved by the order of Secretary rejecting his application for temporary permit, since the period of regular permit expired on 5-5-1998. Question of renewal of permit is dealt with in Sec. 87 of the Act, relevant portion of which is extracted below:

"87. Temporary permits.-- (1) A Regional Transport Authority and the State Transport Authority may without following the procedure laid down in Sec. 80, grant permits, to be effective for a limited period which shall not in any case exceed four months to authorise the use of a transport vehicle temporarily-

(a)..............

(d) Pending decision on an application for the renewal of a permit.

Secretary, Regional Transport Authority therefore could grant temporary permit under Sec. 87(1)(d) read with Sec. 88(7) of the Act and Rule 133(1)(m) of the Kerala Rules, only if an application for renewal of a permit is pending decision before a Regional Transport Authority.

Question to be decided is whether there is any application pending decision before the Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram. Under Sec. 87(1)(d) of the Act, temporary permit can be issued by the Secretary only if an application for renewal of a permit is pending decision before the Regional Transport Authority. In the instant case, admittedly, petitioner did not file the application before fifteen days from the date of expiry of the regular permit. Regular permit expired on 5-5-1998, and petitioner preferred the application only on 2-5-1998. As per Sec. 81(2) a permit can be renewed only if the application for renewal is made not less than 15 days before the date of its expiry. In other words, permit could be renewed by the Regional Transport Authority only if the application for renewal is made not less than 15 days before the date of expiry of the permit, which is a mandatory requirement.

In cases where on failure to submit the application before the authority within the above mentioned statutory period, power is given to the Regional Transport Authority to entertain the application after the last dale specified, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented "by good and sufficient cause" from making the application within the time specified. In the instant case since petitioner did not submit the application in accordance with Sec. 81(2) of the Act, petitioner has to satisfy the Regional Transport Authority that he was prevented by good and sufficient cause from making the application within the time specified under Sec. 81(2) of the Act. Only if the petitioner satisfies the Regional Transport Authority that he was prevented by good and sufficient cause from making the application within the time specified in Sec. 81(2), and if the Regional Transport Authority is satisfied of the same, it can entertain the application. Then only it can be said that application is pending consideration before the Regional Transport Authority. Only if the Regional Transport Authority in exercise of the power under Sec. 81(3) of the Act entertains the application after having satisfied that the applicant was prevented by good and sufficient cause from making the application within the time specified in Sec. 81(2), it can be said that the application is pending.

I am of the view since no application is pending consideration before Regional Transport Authority, the question of granting temporary permit by Secretary under Sec. 87(1)(d) read with Sec. 88(7) of the Act does not arise. Learned Counsel for the petitioner tried to establish that even though it was an inter-district route. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority can issue temporary permit. The said question need not be gone into in this case since no proper application is pending. It is for the petitioner to establish before Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram, the primary authority, that he was prevented by good and sufficient cause from making the application within the time specified in Sec. 81(2). Only if the authority is satisfied, the question of issuing temporary permit will arise for consideration. In the said circumstances, I am of the view that Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram, was justified in rejecting the petitioner''s application vide Ext. P3 order dated 13-11-1998 stating that regular permit of the petitioner''s vehicle has already expired. I am of the view the conclusion reached by the Secretary is justified for the reasons mentioned above.

In the circumstances, Original Petition lacks merits and the same is dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner to move the Regional Transport Authority, second respondent, and convince the Authority that petitioner was prevented by good and sufficient cause from making the application in accordance with Sec. 81(2) of the Act. Only if the Authority entertains the application for renewal, the question of issue of temporary permit will arise under Sec. 87(1)(d) of the Act. In view of the above findings the question as to whether Secretary, Regional Transport Authority could issue temporary permit pending the decision on the renewal application need not be gone into now.