Komalam Vs. Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam - Court Judgment

R. Rajendra Babu, J.

1. Petitioner, who is operating his stage carriage bearing Reg.No. KBE 1911 on theroute Fort Kochi-Eda Kochi, filed this petition for quashing Exts. P4 and P5 ordersgranting variation of the permit tot he fourth respondent in respect of the vehicleKRF 7353.

2. The fourth respondent is operating his stage carriage bearing Reg. No. KRF 7353on the route Kumbalangi-Mattacherry. He filed an application for variation of thepermit so as to operate one trip as Kumbalangi-Kaloor (via) Menaka and another tripas Kumbalangi-Fort Kochi. The above application was rejected by the R.T.A.,Ernakulam as per its proceedings dated 22.6.1999. The above order was challengedby the fourth respondent before the STAT in MVAA No. 498/99. BY Ext. P4 orderthe STAT reversed the order of the RTA and directed to grant the variation andaccordingly the RTA granted variation as per Ext. P5 order. The above orders areunder challenge.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, fourth respondent and also thelearned Government Pleader.

4. The application for variation of the permit filed by the fourth respondent wasrejected by the R.T.A., Ernakulam as per Ext P2 order which reads:

'Heard. Curtailment from Thoppumpady to Mattancherry will adversely affect the existingfacility and no circumstances as per Rule 145(6) exits. Hence rejected.'

The above order was challenged by the fourth respondent before the S.T.A.T. TheS.T.A.F. after considering the report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector, found that thevariation was beneficial to the travelling public and as such the variation was allowable.It was observed in Ext. P4 order that the Motor Vehicle Inspector had reported thatthe proposed variation if allowed would be beneficial to the travelling public ofKumbalangi and Perumbadappu area and that the proposed curtailment portion waswell served and would not affect the travelling public. The variation of the permit wasgranted by the Tribunal on the basis of the report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector thatthe variation would not affect any existing convenience to the travelling public, butthat was advantageous to them. When there is such a finding that there is advantageto the travelling public, the variation has to be allowed and I find no reasons to interferewith the above order of the Tribunal. Though the learned counsel for the petitionertried to assail the above finding of the Tribunal, no circumstances could be establishedto convince the above argument and as such Ext. P4 order of the Tribunal has to beupheld. On the basis of Ext. P4 order, the RTA reconsidered the application forvariation of permit and granted the same by Ext. P5 order.

5. The main argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner wasthat by the proposed variation, there would be four termini and as per law there shouldnot be more than two termini. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent submittedthat the provisions of the statute as well as the Rules do not prohibit the issue of apermit having more than two termini and in fact the statute permit to have more thanone route in a permit. Reliance was placed on Sections 70, and 80 of the M.V. Act(hereinafter referred to as 'the 'Act') Section 70 of the Act deals with application for grantof regular permit. Section 70(1) reads:

'An application for a permit in respect of a stage carriage (in this Chapter referred to as astage carriage permit) or as a reserve stage carriage shall, as far as may be, contain the followingparticulars, namely:- (a) the route or routes or the areas to which the application relates'.

Section 72 relates to grant of stage carriage permits. Section 72(2) reads:-

'The Regional Transport Authority, if it decides to grant a stage carriage permit, may grantthe permit for a stage carriage of a specified description and may, subject to any rules that maybe made under this Act, attach to the permit any one or more of the following conditions, namely:- (i) that the vehicles shall be used only in a specified area, or on a specified route or routes.'

Section 80(3) which deals with variation of conditions of permit reads:

'An application to vary the conditions of any permit, other than a temporary permit, by theinclusion of a new route or routes or a new area or by altering the route or routes or area coveredby it, or in the case of a stage carriage permit by increasing the number of trips above the specifiedmaximum or by the variation, extension or curtailment of the route or routes or the area specifiedin the permit shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit.

(i) in the case of variation, the termini shall not be altered and the distance covered bythe variation shall not exceed twenty-four kilometres.'

The above provisions specifically mention regarding the grant of permit in respect ofthe 'routes' and thereby it is patent that a permit can be issued in respect of more thenone route. Route has been defined under Section 2(38) of the Act, which reads:

'Route means a line of travel which specifies the highway which may be traversed by a motorvehicle between one terminus and another'.

In view of the above definition, a route should have two termini. In view of the aboveprovisions under Sections 70(1), 72(2) and 80(3) of the Act a permit can be issued inrespect of different routes and if that be so, there can be more termini than two.Hence, the above argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannotbe accepted. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on thedecision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Vivek Dwivedi v. Prem Narain (AIR1999 M.P. 1). There the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, whileconsidering whether a single application for the grant of permit in respect of twodifferent routes, held:-

'Taking into consideration the various aspects referred to hereinabove, there can be n oescape from the conclusion that a single application for the grant of a single permit for twodifferent routes is not permissible or contemplated under the Act.'

It was further held:

'The provisions contained in Section 70 of the Act, in our opinion, have to be interpreted notin a pedantic manner but taking into consideration the provisions contained in Section 13 of the GeneralClauses Act, 1897 which provides that in all Central Acts and Regulations, unless there isanything repugnant in the subject or context, words in the singular shall include the plural, andvice versa.'

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the above decision canhave application on the present case and as such the permit can be only in respect ofa route and it cannot be in respect to different routes. With great respect, I disagreewith the approach made by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in importing the provisionsof the General Clauses Act for interpreting the provisions in the statute. In fact thelegislature in its wisdom has used the word route as well as routes in three placesunder different context and by no stretch of imagination can it be held that the usageof the word 'routes' will have to be treated as route in the singular form. The facts ofthe above case have no similarity with the facts of this and hence, I do not intend toplace reliance on the above decision.

6. Another argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner was thatthe Act contemplates only variation of the route and not variation of a trip and regardingthe variation of the trip it can only be in the increase or decease in the number of tripsand it cannot be in respect of variation of the trip. Though such an argument wasadvanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, he could not substantiate the abovecontention as the statute did not prohibit the variation of a trip. A trip has been definedin the explanation to Section 70(1) of the Act as trip means a single journey from one pointto another and every return journey shall be deemed to be a separate trip. It does notsay that a trip should be from one terminal to the other. A per the above definition, atrip need not be from one terminal to another terminal and the variation as contemplatedunder Section 80(3) of the Act can be in respect of a trip also. When variation is granted,there can be a change in the trip without a change in the number of trips. The variationof a route can be in respect of a variation in the trip also and by no stretch of imaginationcan it be held that such variations are not contemplated by law. Sub-section (3) of Section 80says that variation, extension or curtailment of routes or increase in the number oftrips above the specified maximum will have to be treated as an application for thegrant of a new permit. By the words 'shall be treated as an application for the grantof a new permit' has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in Karnataka StateRoad Transport Corporation, Bangalore v. B.A. Jayaram (AIR 1984 SC 790) asthe procedure to be followed in the case of an application made for the variation to bethe same as in the case of procedure to be followed in the case of grant of a newpermit. In fact the above contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioneralso cannot be accepted. Hence, this petition has only to be dismissed.

7. In the result, this Original Petition is dismissed.