Partly allowed

Shibumon.P. v. the Secretary

Kerala HC23 Nov 2020WP(C)/23547/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner owner of a stage carriage sought a temporary permit without stating the specific temporary need, contrary to Section 87 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court directed the Regional Transport Authority to consider the application strictly according to law, noting the requirement to state the temporary need, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's temporary permit application strictly in accordance with law, with notice and hearing opportunity, within eight weeks.

Shibumon.P. Vs the Secretary — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.23547 OF 2020(P)

¶6

NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PETITIONER:

¶7

SHIBUMON.P., AGED 48 YEARS KUREEKATTIL VEEDU, PANAYAMCHERRY, ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS

¶9

NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE RESPONDENT:

¶10

THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM, PIN-691 013

¶11

SRI KP HARISH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C).No.23547 OF 2020

¶14

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

The petitioner states that he is the owner of a stage carriage No. KL 4/P

¶17

He applied for grant of a temporary permit on an intra-district route Vazhavila- Punalur-Anchal-Nellimoodu. Along with the application, he has also attached a covering letter wherein he stated that the original permit holder had surrendered the permit and the timings of the said service is not so far allotted to any other person. According to the petitioner, there is a temporary need warranting issuance of a temporary permit. It is in the above fact scenario that the petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to the respondent to entertain Exhibit P1 application and pass appropriate orders.

¶18

I have heard Sri O.D. Sivadas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.K.P. Harish, the learned Senior Government pleader.

¶19

The learned counsel submitted that on account of the nonoperation of the regular service there is a temporary need and in that view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to be issued with a temporary permit.

¶20

The learned Government pleader has opposed the prayer. He contended that the grant of a temporary permit can be made for meeting a temporary need and while making an application, the applicant is obliged to state the temporary need so as to enable the concerned authority to process

¶21

WP(C).No.23547 OF 2020

¶22

¶23

his application. It is pointed out that the petitioner has not mentioned in the application as to what constitutes the temporary need and in that view of the matter the application is not liable to be entertained.

¶24

I have considered the submissions advanced. Section 87 of the Motor Vehicles Act deals with temporary permits. As per sub-section (1) of Section 87, a Regional Transport Authority and the State Transport Authority may without following the procedure laid down in Section 80, grant permits to be effective for a limited period which shall, not, in any case, 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 purpose of a seasonal business; or (c) to meet a temporary need; or (d) pending decision on an application for the renewal of a permit, and may attach to any such permit such condition as it may think fit. As per the proviso to sub-section (1), a Regional Transport Authority or as the case may be, State Transport Authority may, in the case of goods carriages, under the circumstances of an exceptional nature, and for reasons to be recorded in writing, grant a permit for a period exceeding four months, but not exceeding one year. Sub-section (2) of Section 87, which starts with a non-obstante clause provides that, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a temporary permit may be granted thereunder in respect of any route or area where (i) no permit could be issued under Section 72 or Section 74 or Section 76 or Section 79 in respect of that route or area by

¶25

WP(C).No.23547 OF 2020

¶26

¶27

reason of an order of a Court or other competent authority restraining the issue of the same, for a period not exceeding the period for which the issue of the permit has been so restrained; or (ii) as a result of suspension by a Court or other competent authority of the permit of any vehicle in respect of that route or area, there is no transport vehicle of the same class with a valid permit in respect of that route or area, or there is no adequate number of such vehicles in respect of that route or area, for a period not exceeding the period of such suspension. As per the proviso to sub-section (2), the number of transport vehicles in respect of which temporary permits are so granted shall not exceed the number of vehicles in respect of which the issue of permits have been restrained or, as the case may be, the permit has been suspended.

¶28

A reading of the provisions under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 87 of the Motor Vehicles Act makes it explicitly clear that the grant of a temporary permit under the said clause can only be made for meeting a particular temporary need. Therefore in an application for temporary permit, invoking the provisions under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 87, it is incumbent upon the applicant to state the temporary need on the route applied for, so as to enable the competent authority to entertain such an application. For grant of temporary permit, the competent authority is required to consider the condition stipulated in clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 87 of the Act and only if that condition is satisfied, temporary permit can be granted for the time limit specified in that Section. In Private bus owners organisation,

¶29

WP(C).No.23547 OF 2020

¶30

¶31

Vypeen Paravur Unit v Transport Commissioner, TVM and Ors ( 2017 (5) KHC 419), this Court had occasion to hold that if the requirement in a particular route is permanent, Section 87 (1) (a) to (c) will never be attracted. However, these are matters which are to be taken note of by the respondent while considering the application filed by the petitioner.

¶32

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the request made by the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent to consider Ext.P1 application made by the petitioner for temporary permit, strictly in accordance with law, taking note of the law laid down hereinbefore, with notice to the petitioner and after affording him an opportunity of being heard, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

¶37

WP(C).No.23547 OF 2020

¶38

¶39

APPENDIX

¶40

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:

¶41

EXHIBIT P1 THE COPY OF THE APPLICATION WITH COVERING LETTER DATED 23.10.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT FOR TEMPORARY PERMIT.

¶42

RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS: NIL

¶43

/TRUE COPY/

¶44

P.A. TO JUDGE

Shibumon.P. v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shibumon.P. v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Haridasan P. Vs the Land Tribunal

Jaseemudheen. H Vs State of Kerala

M/S Vakkom Palazzo Vs State of Kerala

Radhakrishnan, Vs the Special Tahsildar

Danial Mathew Vs the District Collector

Mathu Vs the Special Tahsildar