The High Court of Kerala clarified that merely applying for a permanent bus permit does not entitle the applicant to a temporary permit. Permanent permit applications do not independently satisfy conditions under Section 87 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1980, thereby distinguishing earlier judicial directions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.R.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH &
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/25TH JYAISHTA, 1939
WA. No.993 of 2017 ()
(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 28-03-2017 IN WP(C) 9361/2017)
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
...2/-
WA. No.993 of 2017 ()
:2:
R5 BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON AS DIRECTED BY THE COURT
R1 TO R4 BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P. SANTHOSH KUMAR
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
'C.R.'
NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, C.J. & RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J.
W.A. No.993 of 2017
Dated this the 15th day of June, 2017
JUDGMENT
Navaniti Prasad Singh, C.J.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 28.03.2017 in W.P(C) No.9361 of 2017, refusing to interfere in the matter, this appeal has been filed by the writ petitioners. Pursuant to the orders of this Court an impleading petition was filed. The private respondent was noticed and he was also heard. We have heard the learned Special Government Pleader Mr.P.Santhosh Kumar as well. With consent of parties, we are disposing of this appeal at this stage itself.
WA.993/17
-:2:-
application before the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority for grant of temporary permit for the same route on the ground that having made an application for permanent permit, till permanent permit is not granted, temporary permit may be issued. This not having been done, he moved this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.37585 of 2016 which was disposed of by judgment dated 24.11.2016. We would quote some parts of the judgment in the said writ petition.
“The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the inaction on the part of the respondent in granting the temporary permit sought by him.”
“Since the application preferred by the petitioner for grant of a regular permit on the very same route and timings is pending, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent to consider Ext.P1 application and grant the temporary permit sought by the petitioner, if there is no impediment for the same. This shall be done within two weeks from today.”
private respondent was granted temporary permit pending consideration of grant of permanent permit. The Association of Bus Operators of the area, as also some individuals, then noticed that
WA.993/17
-:3:-
taking advantage of the above observations of this Court, several persons have started preferring applications for permanent permits and then apply for temporary permits which were being granted. This was not the legislative intent, for the authority to grant temporary permits, as contained in Section 87 of the Act. The allegation thus is that the order is being unscrupulously used to violate the law with impunity. It is with that object and to seek clarification of this Court, the appellants have filed W.P.(C) No.9361 of 2017, which was dismissed by judgment and order dated 28.03.2017 wherein, noticing that the private respondent's permit has been cancelled, the court was not inclined to interfere, even though it was informed that cancellation had been stayed by the Appellate Tribunal. It is being aggrieved by the said judgment, this appeal has been preferred.
WA.993/17
-:4:-
permanent permit, an applicant could be considered for grant of temporary permit and that being so, there was nothing wrong in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge.
WA.993/17
-:5:-
judgment cannot be extended to laying down a proposition that whenever an application for permanent permit is made, the applicant gets a right to get temporary permit. That would be destructive of the entire statutory scheme. Section 87 of the Act clearly lays down the contingencies under which a temporary permit can be granted.
WA.993/17
-:6:-
limit. He did not make any such prayer. Rather he made an application in the interregnum for temporary permit and sought a mandamus for grant of temporary permit, instead of grant of permanent permit. This fact is noted in the order quoted above. This clearly shows that this was mere abuse of process and not sanctified by Section 87 of the Act. It was circumventing the restrictions put by law.
Lal v. Union of India and others (AIR 1976 SC 789). The relevant portion reads thus:
“It is well settled that where a power is required to be exercised by a certain authority in a certain way, it should be exercised in that manner or not at all, and all other modes of performances are necessarily forbidden.”
-:7:-
WA.993/17
temporary permit cannot be granted. For grant of temporary permit, the authorities are required to consider the conditions as stipulated in Section 87 of the Act and only if one or the other of those conditions is satisfied, then for a limited period as stipulated in the said section, temporary permit can be granted.
With the above direction and observation, this appeal stands disposed of. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the State Transport Commissioner for being communicated to all relevant authorities for guidance.
Sd/Navaniti Prasad Singh, Chief Justice
Sd/Raja Vijayaraghavan V., Judge
krj.16/6
/TRUE COPY/
P.A. TO JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether filing an application for a permanent permit entitles an applicant to automatically receive a temporary permit pending its consideration.
Whether Section 87 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1980 permits granting temporary permits to circumvent statutory conditions for permanent permits.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. B. P. UpadhyayaDistinguished¶50
Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. B. P. Upadhyaya (AIR 1966 SC 156) · Who else cites this
Hukum Chand Shyam Lal v. Union of IndiaApplied¶63
Hukum Chand Shyam Lal v. Union of India (AIR 1976 SC 789) · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Cannanore District Bus Operators Association
Thalassery Private Bus Operators Association
State of Kerala
Regional Transport Authority
Private Bus Operator
Navaniti Prasad Singh
Raja Vijayaraghavan V
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
