Manoharan vs R.T.O.

S. Sankarasubban, J.—Petitioner is an operator on the route Ernakulam-Kottayam. The third respondent applied ''for a temporary permit on the route Thalayolaparambu-Emakulam. The R.T.A. granted permit to him. True copy of the permit is Ext. P1. It shows that the permit is issued for one year under the proviso to Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Ext. P2 is the true copy of the temporary permit issued by the Secretary to the third respondent. Petitioner has challenged Exts. P1 and P2 on the ground that the RTO has no power to issue a permit for more than four months. According to the petitioner, a temporary permit can be issued only u/s 87 of the Motor Vehicles Act. u/s 87 of the Act, a temporary permit can be issued only for four months, when the conditions mentioned there exist Section 87 appears in Chapter V of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Ext. P1 permit is issued under the proviso to Section 104 of the Act. Section 104 appears in Chapter VI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Chapter VI deals with the scheme for nationalisation with regard to the State Transport Undertakings. Once the scheme is implemented, the State Transport Undertaking has got the exclusive right to operate on the route. Then, no permit can be issued to a private operator.

Section 104 of the Act states as follows:

Where a scheme has been published under Sub-section (3) of Section 100 in respect of any notified area or notified route, the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be, shall not grant any permit except in accordance with the provisions of the scheme.

Thus, there is a total embargo to grant permits to private operators in a notified area which is covered by the scheme. The proviso to Section 104 is an exception. Under this proviso, if no application for a permit has been made by the State Transport Undertaking in respect of any notified area or notified route, the Regional Transport Authority can grant temporary permit in respect of such notified area subject to the condition that such permit shall cease to be effective on the issue of a permit to the State Transport Undertaking.

According to me, the temporary permit that is granted u/s 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act is different from a temporary permit that is granted u/s 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. u/s 62, a temporary permit is granted only to meet certain contingencies when the operation of the vehicle is essential. Section 104 speaks of the contingency when the State Transport Undertaking fails to obtain a permit with the result that operation of the service is necessary for the public. The proviso clearly states that permit is to last till the State Transport Undertaking apples for the permit. Hence, it cannot be said that the permit that is to be issued under te proviso to Section 104 should not exceed 4 months.

A similar question arose before this Court in the decision reported in 1978 KLT 410 Sankaran Nairv. R.T.A. Kottayam. Poti J., as he then was, interpreting Section 68F (1-C) of the old Act, 1939 (which is pan materia to the present Section 104) held that a temporary permit granted u/s 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is different from the temporary permit granted u/s 68F(1C). It was also held that the restriction of the period mentioned in Section 62 is not applicable to the permits issued u/s 68F(1-C). I fully agree with the reasoning and conclusions of Justice Poti in 1978 KLT 410.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice a decision of Thomas J., as he then was, in O.P. No. 6105 of 1990. The argument in that case was that a temporary permit u/s 104 can be granted only when it is found that a temporary need exists u/s 87. That was met in the judgment by saying that the fact that the State Transport Undertaking has not obtained permit itself envisages a temporary need. His Lordship stated thus:

It is quite unnecessary for the Regional Transport Authority to separately arrive at a finding that a temporary need arise and then to consider the application for a temporary permit. If one goes by Section 104, it would speak about the existence of a temporary need.

But the question as to whether the temporary permit issued under the proviso to Section 104 can have the life of only four months were not considered by His Lordship. Hence, mat decision cannot be of any help to the petitioner.

In the result, I find no illegality in Exts. P1 and P2. Original Petition is therefore, dismissed.