SREEKALA CHANDRAN v. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/14TH JYAISHTA, 1936** **WP(C).No. 13171 of 2014 (V)** **----------------------------** **PETITIONER(S) :-** **-------------------** **SREEKALA CHANDRAN W/O. CHANDRAN, MANCHAKKATTU HOUSE, THIRUVANKULAM THRIPUNITHURA P.O., ERNAKULAM.** ## **BY ADV. SMT.CHINCY GOPAKUMAR** ## **RESPONDENT(S) :-** **-------------------** **1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY KOTTAYAM - 686002, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** ## **2. THE SECRETARY,** **THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM - 686002.** **R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJU MEENATTOOR** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **jvt** **WP(C).No. 13171 of 2014 (V)** **----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :-** **---------------------------** **EXHIBIT-P1-TRUE COPY OF THE REEGULAR PERMIT ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT ON THE ROUTE PERUNNA – ERNAKULAM.** **EXHIBIT-P2-TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO. C3/112186/2012/K DATED 15/12/2012 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT-P3-TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF VEHICLE NO. KL 34/504.** **EXHIBIT-P4-TRUE COPY OF THE INSURANCE CERTIFICATE PERTAINING TO THE VEHICLE MENTIONED IN EXHIBIT-P3.** **EXHIBIT-P5-TRUE COPY OF THE FITNESS CERTIFICATE PERTAINING TO THE VEHICLE MENTIONED IN EXHIBIT-P3.** **EXHIBIT-P6-TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT DATED 22/01/2013 ISSUED ON THE ROUTE PERUNNA- ERNAKULAM AS LSOS DUE TO THE PENDENCY OF APPLICATION FOR REPLACEMENT OF STAGE CARRIAGE.** **EXHIBIT-P7-TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT GRANTED FOR THE PERIOD FROM 14/02/2014 TO 13/06/2014.** **EXHIBIT-P8-TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED IN RESPECT OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT.** **EXHIBIT-P9-TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE FEE RS.600/-FOR TEMPORARY PERMIT.** **EXHIBIT-P10-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20/05/2014 IN M.V.A.A 66/2013.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :- NIL** **--------------------------------** //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ## **K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. --------------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.13171 of 2014-V ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 4[th] day of June, 2014** ## **J U D G M E N T** This writ petition is filed challenging Exhibit P10 order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal holding that a temporary permit cannot be issued as a continuing measure, successively. The petitioner is a stage carriage operator. She was operating on the route PerunnaErnakulam on the strength of a regular permit issued by the first respondent. According to her, an application for renewal of permit submitted by her within the prescribed time is pending. She has been conducting services during the interregnum on the strength of successive temporary permits issued by the first respondent having duration of four months. On the expiry of the term of the subsisting temporary permit, the petitioner had approached the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam by filing M.P.No.151 of 2014 seeking a direction to reissue the ## -:2:- ## W.P.(C) No.13171 of 2014-V temporary permit to her. The petition has been dismissed. 2. According to Advocate Chincy Gopakumar who appears for the petitioner, Exhibit P10 order has been passed relying on the dictum in **Aniyamma Thomas v. Regional Transport Authority** [1996 (2) KLT 17]. It is contended that a later decision of this Court reported in **Hassan Kunju v. R.T.O., Pathanamthitta** [1997(1) KLT 476] has taken a different view. The said decision has not been considered by the Tribunal. 3. A statement has been filed by the Government Pleader pointing out that the petitioner had been approaching this Court with successive writ petitions for the issue of temporary permits. The application for reissue of temporary permit submitted by her has already been ordered to be placed before the next meeting of the first respondent. 4. A reply has been filed to the statement of the Government Pleader pointing out that, it was challenging ## -:3:- ## W.P.(C) No.13171 of 2014-V the illegal orders of the authorities that the petitioner had approached this Court. 4. Heard. The question as to whether temporary permits could be issued successively after the expiry of each four month period stipulated by Section 87(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act,1939 was considered by this Court in **Hassan Kunju v. R.T.O., Pathanamthitta** [1997(1) KLT 476] (Supra). The decision in **Aniyamma Thomas v. Regional Transport Authority** [1996 (2) KLT 17] (supra) has also been considered by this Court in the said decision. 5. This Court has concluded the issue in the following words:- 9. It is well settled that Regional Transport Authority has to address itself as to whether temporary need exists before issuing a temporary permit in the cases coming under clauses (a) to (c) of S. 87(1). It is a jurisdictional fact. Only if there is temporary need, then only authority exercises his jurisdiction to grant temporary permit. However, in the case of S. 87(l)(d) what the Authority has to consider is whether a temporary need exists or not, but whether an application for renewal is pending which pre-supposes the co- -:4:- W.P.(C) No.13171 of 2014-V existence of temporary and permanent need. Under the above mentioned circumstances, the decision of the Supreme Court in M. P. S. R. T. Corporation v. R. T. Authority AIR 1966 SC 156 assumes importance. Supreme Court was considering the scope of S. 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. While explaining the words ‘in any case’ appearing in S. 62, which is pari materia with the present Section, Supreme Court held that the words ‘in any case’ do not mean ‘in any circumstances’. The Section means that at any time the Regional Transport Authority is not permitted to issue to any person a temporary permit for a period exceeding four months, but if the temporary need persists, as for example, where the formalities under S. 57 (of the old Act) are not completed within a period of four months, it would be permissible for the Regional Transport Authority to grant a second temporary permit in order to meet the temporary need. 10. S. 87 of the Act authorises the authority to issue temporary permit to be effective for a limited period which shall not in any case exceed four months. The emphasis is on the ‘limited period’, which shall not in any case exceed four months. That does mean under no circumstances temporary permit be issued after four months. If such an interpretation is accepted, even if there is a genuine temporary need, permit could not be issued to meet such a situation. The same cannot be the intention of the Legislature. The limitation is prescribed by the Statute to see that temporary permit be not issued ## -:5:- ## W.P.(C) No.13171 of 2014-V unduly for long periods, so that the permit will have a rational relationship with the jurisdictional facts. Nonexistence of jurisdictional facts will wipe-off the need for a temporary permit. In other words, the necessity of issuing temporary permit beyond four months depends upon the jurisdictional facts. If those facts exists, including the pendency of renewal applications, that would confer jurisdiction on the Authority to grant permits after a period of four months. The above dictum has not been taken note of by the impugned order Exhibit P10. It is settled law that, it is the later decision that binds where there is a conflict between the dicta of two different Benches of equal strength. Since the later decision of this Court has not been taken note of or considered by the impugned order Exhibit P10, the same is unsustainable. In view of the above Exhibit P10 is set aside. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal is directed to consider M.P.No.151 of 2014 afresh, in the light of the later decision reported in **Hassan Kunju v. R.T.O., Pathanamthitta** [1997(1) KLT 476] (Supra). M.P.No.151 of 2014 in ## -:6:- W.P.(C) No.13171 of 2014-V M.V.A.A.No.66 of 2013 shall be considered and final orders shall be passed thereon, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two weeks of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Tribunal shall give priority to the above matter considering the fact that a meeting of the Regional Transport Authority is scheduled to be held shortly. **Sd/K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE** kkj