Sri A.V.C. Veerabadrappa vs The Regional Transport Authority

B.S. Patil, J.—This writ petition is directed against the resolution dated 13.10.2008 passed by the 1st respondent-Regional Transport Authority, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, thereby renewing the permit granted in favour of the 2nd respondent to be effective uptil July 2013. Petitioner is a rival operator on the route in question. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned resolution passed renewing the permit is illegal inasmuch as although there was delay in applying for renewal of the permit and though no prayer for condonation of the same was made by assigning good and acceptable cause the 1st respondent has passed the impugned order ordering for renewal of the permit imposing certain conditions to be satisfied in future.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

On perusal of the impugned resolution, I find that the 1st respondent has made an observation in the course of the order that no reasons had been assigned by the 2nd respondent for the delay in applying for renewal of the permit and in the light of the objections filed for renewal, the application filed for renewal deserved to be dismissed. However, the 1st respondent proceeds to grant renewal of license stating that the same deserved to be renewed, keeping in mind the interest of the travelling public. The 1st respondent has made the renewal conditional stating that the applicant - 2nd respondent herein must give an undertaking that he will not commit such delay in future.

As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the procedure followed by the 1st respondent in granting renewal is not in conformity with the provisions contained under Sub-sections 2 and 3 of Section 81 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is true even if there is delay in applying for renewal of the license the Regional Transport Authority is entitled to entertain an application for renewal if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by good and sufficient cause from making an application within the time specified. It is relevant to notice here that the permit can be renewed on the application made not less than 15 days before the date of expiry. In the instant case, the 2nd respondent made the application seeking renewal nearly after lapse of more than one month. He had admittedly not filed any application seeking condonation of delay. In such circumstances, the 1st respondent ought to have ensured that the 2nd respondent complied with the procedure prescribed and explained the delay before entertaining the application for renewal.

The adhoc manner in which the 1st respondent has allowed the application putting a condition that in future the applicant - 2nd respondent should not commit such delay is not in conformity with the provisions of the Act. Unless the Authority is satisfied for good and sufficient reasons that the delay was required to be condoned, it will not get power or jurisdiction for renewal of the license. Therefore, the procedure followed being illegal, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. Hence, the impugned resolution is set aside. The matter is remitted to the 1st respondent for consideration afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. It will be open to the 2nd respondent to make necessary application explaining the delay in filing the application seeking renewal. All the other contentions are kept open to be urged before the Competent Authority.