V. Kunju Menon vs Secretary, R.T.B and Another

M.S. Menon, J.—This petition challenges the validity of a temporary permit issued to 2nd Respondent in respect of the Irinjalakuda - Kattur Karanchira - Pazhuvil - Knamavu route u/s 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The permit was issued by 1st Respondent, the secretary, Regional Transport Board, Trichur, in exercise of the powers delegated to him under R. 133 (12) of the Travancore Cochin Motor Vehicles Rules, 1952.

The Regional Transport Board, Trichur, had granted a stage carriage permit to the 2nd Respondent for the said route after complying with the procedure laid down in Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The Petitioner who was one of the unsuccessful applicants for that permit had also filed, an appeal before the Central Road Traffic Board, Trivandrum, and applied for a stay of proceedings pending the disposal of his appeal.

The order of the Central Road Traffic Board which the Petitioner obtained on 21-12-1955 reads as follows:

This is an appeal petition from Sri V. K. Menon, Proprietor, V. K. Menon Motor Service, Tripayer Peringottukara P. O., Trichur, against the order of the R. T. B., Trichur, granting a permit on Irinjalakuda - Enamavu via Kattoor Karanchira and Pazhuvil route to Sri A. Chandrangada Menon, Proprietor Chandrasenan Motors. There is also Order of the for Service, Antikad P. O., Trichur (vide No. R.O.C. 264 M.V.P. 55 G-12-55) rejecting application above permit. appeal time filed. an additional prayer order R. T. B. An interim stay granted. The Secretary, R.T.B., Trichur, is requested not to issue the permit till the appeal petition is disposed of.

On the 6th January 1956 the 2nd Respondent addressed the following letter to the Secretary, Regional Transport Board, Trichur:

SancUon has accorded to me as per above order-to rui/my. bus on the above route and I have accordingly made arrangements to obtain pucca per-to run my bus T.C.C. 3783, and run service Tom 5-1-1956. But unfortunately stay order has an issued as per order No. 176/CB/TA/Tr./55 dated 21-12-1955, for an interim period.

I therefore pray that a temporary permit may be issued for the above vehicle to run till final orders are passed and a pucca permit is issued. For this purpose, I send herewith form P.T.A. in duplicate together with Trichur Treasury Chalan No. 922 for Rs. 8/- towards the necessary fees, and trust you will issue the temporary permit immediately.

In this connection it will not be out of place if I mention that Messrs. P. S. N. Motors Ltd., of this, place have obtained a temporary permit to run their bus on Irinjalakuda - Trichur line, via Kattur-Pazhuvil route, even though an interim stay order has been passed.

I therefore pray that I may be issued a temporary permit to run my above bus TCC. 3783 in the above route, till the issue of final orders, and pucca permit after the withdrawal of the Stay Order. Time Sheet is also herewith attached," and in pursuance of it the Secretary granted him a temporary permit valid for a period of one month from''10-1-1956.

On 16-1-1956 Respondent 2 addressed the Secretary again as follows:

A temporary permit was issued to my above bus TCC 3783 in the line Irinjalakuda-Enamavu, and this permit allowing to run the bus expires on 9-2-1956.

I therefore request you to kindly issue me another temporary permit to continue the service "without default. For the same I send herewith Form PTA in duplicate duly filled up and one Chalan for Rs. 8. Please issue me another temporary permit for continuing the service," and obtained another temporary permit valid for a further period of two months from 10-2-1956. In both the permits "Purpose of journey or journeys" is entered as "To conduct Regular Service as per the timings" given.

I agree with the counsel for Respondent 2 that the stay of proceedings ordered by the Central Road Traffic Board, Trivandrum, on 21-12-1955 will not preclude the issue of a temporary permit to his client u/s 62, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, provided the requisites of that section are satisfied by the facts of this case. The only question, therefore, that arises for consideration is whether the reasons alleged by the Petitioner in his communications dated 6-1-1956 and 16-1-1956 are sufficient to justify the grant of a temporary permit under that section.

Section 62, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, reads as follows;

A Regional Transport Authority may at its discretion, and without following the procedure laid down in Section 57, grant permits to be effective for a limited period not in any case to exceed four months, to authorise the use of a transport vehicle temporarily-

(a) for the conveyance of passengers on special occasions such as to and from fairs and religious gatherings, or (b) for the purposes of a seasonal business, or (c) to meet a particular temporary need, and may attach to any such permit any condition it thinks fit.

According to the learned Counsel for Respondent 2 Sub-section (c) is attracted even though Sub-sections (a) and (b) are of no application. I cannot agree. The "temporary need" contemplated by Sub-section (c) cannot possibly be that of Respondent 2 or of bus owners similarly situated, but of the travelling public.

That there is a permanent need as far as the travelling public is concerned is admitted and is evident from the grant of the stage carriage permit to Respondent 2 which is now under appeal. The issue of an order staying proceedings pending the disposal of that appeal cannot convert that "permanent need" into a "temporary need" within the meaning of Section 62(c), Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The need will continue to be "permanent" even though its satisfaction has been postponed by the appellate authority in its discretion to the termination of the appeal.

It follows that this petition has to be allowed and the current temporary permit in favour of Respondent 2 quashed as one issued without jurisdiction judgment accordingly; but in the circumstances of the case without any order as to costs.