The Regional Transport Authority can grant a temporary permit under section 62 (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act to meet a particular temporary need, even if there is a permanent need for transport facilities on that route.

Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 62 (C) - TEMPORARY PERMIT - GRANT OF - PARTICULAR TEMPORARY NEED - INTERPRETATION - WORDS "IN ANY CASE" - MEANING OF.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, Madhya Pradesh State Road Corporation, was granted a temporary permit for 4 months to operate a town bus service in Raipur. The respondent, Madhya Pradesh Transport Co. (Private) Ltd., Raipur, challenged the grant of the temporary permit by filing a writ petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of the Regional Transport Authority granting the temporary permit.
Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that the Regional Transport Authority was right in granting a temporary permit to the appellant under section 62 (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act in the circumstances of the case. The Court held that there was a particular temporary need for the provision of transport facilities and that the High Court was erroneous in taking the view that whenever there was a permanent need there could be no temporary need.
Issues: 1. Whether the Regional Transport Authority was right in granting a temporary permit to the appellant under section 62 (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act in the circumstances of the case? 2. Whether the words "in any case" in section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act mean that under no circumstances a temporary permit can be granted on any route for more than a total period of 4 months?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that there was a particular temporary need for the provision of transport facilities and that the High Court was erroneous in taking the view that whenever there was a permanent need there could be no temporary need. 2. The Court held that the words "in any case" do not mean "in any circumstance" and that the Regional Transport Authority is not permitted to issue to any person a temporary permit for a period exceeding 4 months at anyone time, but if the temporary need persists, it would be permissible for the Regional Transport Authority to grant a second temporary permit in order to meet the temporary need.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the High Court dated 13th January 1965 and declared that the order of the Regional Transport Authority dated 25th November 1964 granting a temporary permit to the appellant is legally valid.

RAMASWAMI J. -This appeal raises an important question as to the scope and interpretation of section 62 (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act and as to whether the appellant -Madhya Pradesh State Road Corporation -was entitled, in the circumstances of the case, to the grant of a temporary permit for 4 months under section 62 (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

2. On 27th November 1962 applications were invited for a permit for running a town bus service in Raipur. On 20th February 1963 it was decided by the Regional Transport Authority to grant a permit for the service to the third respondent -Madhya Pradesh Transport Co. (Private) Ltd., Raipur but the 3rd respondent did not produce buses of the required specifications for operating the service though several opportunities were given. The order granting the permit to the 3rd respondent was consequently revoked by the Regional Transport Authority on 13th September 1964. Shortly thereafter the Regional Transport Authority granted a temporary permit to the appellant for a period of two months i. e., from 29th September to 28th November 1964 in respect of the aforesaid bus service. By the order dated 25th November 1964 the Regional Transport Authority granted another temporary permit for a month to the appellant. The order of 25th November 1964 states:

"From the large number of letters from some responsible members of the public received with this application and the statistics of the traffic catered to by the buses operated by the Corporation, it is now clear that the public of Raipur is feeling the need of the town bus operations. It bas been decided by this Authority separately that applications for regular operations on two routes actually operated temporarily with some extensions and one additional route be invited. However it has to be accepted that expectations of the public for these transport facilities at least on the existing two routes have been arouse ed and have created a particular need which has to be met temporarily till regular operations are introduced. The restrictions put by the first proviso to section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act and which has been emphasized in the decision of their Lordships of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Shri Ram Khanna V. Ramgopal Satyanarain (I) will no. operate in sanctioning a further grant for a period of 4 months till nearly the end of March when the academic Year may end for a large number of students availing of this facility.

A temporary permit for a period of four months from the date of expiry. i. e., 28 -11 -1964, on the route and timing covered by the previous order of grant dated 19 -9 -1964 is approved. This will stand cancelled if regular operations covering these routes are introduced in the meantime."

The 3rd respondent thereupon moved the High Court of Madhya Pradesh on 19th December 1964 for grant of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Regional Transport Authority granting temporary permits to the appellant for operating the bus service. The application was allowed by the High Court on 13th January 1965 and a writ in the nature of certiorari was issued quashing the order of the Regional Transport Authority dated 25th November 1964 by which a temporary permit was granted to the appellant. The High Court took the view that a temporary permit cannot be granted for any route when there is a permanent need for providing transport facilities on that route and it has been decided to invite applications for that purpose. This appeal is brought, by special leave, by the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation against the judgment of the High Court in the writ petition.

3. Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act states:

"62. A Regional Transport Authority may without following the procedure laid down in section 51, grant permits, to be effective for a limited period not in any case to exceed four months, to authorise the use of the transport vehicle temporarily -

a) for the conveyance of passengers on special oc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document