WPC 24227/06

The point that arises for decision in this case, is whether the State Transport Authority, by issuing administrative instructions, can fetter the discretion of the RTA in granting temporary permits under Section 87(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The brief facts of the case are the following:

2. The petitioner is a stage carriage operator, operating on the route Kottayam-Puthenthodu. He applied for a temporary permit on the route Puthenthode-Kottayam, for a period of 20 days. But, the permit was granted, only for a period of five days, as evident from Ext.P1. The term of the permit was restricted to five days, relying on clause 4 of Ext.P2 circular issued by the State Transport authority. The relevant clause of the said circular reads as follows:

“Temporary Permits under clause (c) of the section shall be granted only for a period not exceeding five days at a time.”

The Petitioner submits, the above clause is plainly ultra vires of and unauthorised by the provisions of the Act. While granting a temporary permit, the RTA or the Secretary is exercising a quasi-judicial function. The said power cannot be fettered by administrative instructions like Clause 4 of Ext.P2. In support of this submission, reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in B. Rajagopala Naidu v. S.T.A.T., Madras (AIR 1964 SC 1573).

3. The respondents have filed a statement, resisting the prayers in the Writ Petition. They would submit that the STA has issued the circular, in exercise of its power under Section 68(4) read with Section 68(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The RTAs are indiscriminately issuing temporary permits and the same is creating unnecessary competition. New entrants in the field of stage carriage operation, often obtain short term permits on various routes for testing the waters. Such operators are causing great hardship to the existing operators. So, to present such operators from getting permits and operating, the STA issued Ext.P2 circulate, it is submitted.

4. The point raised by the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in Rajagopala Naidu’s case mentioned above. I feel that none of the provisions relied on by the respondents will authorise the STA to ask the RTAs not to grant temporary permits under Section 87(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, for a period exceeding five days. Sections 68(3) and (4) of the Act read as follows:

“68(3) The State Transport Authority and every Regional Transport authority shall give effect to any directions issued under section 67 and the State Transport Authority shall, subject to such directions and save as otherwise provided by or under this Act, exercise and discharge throughout the State, the following powers and functions, namely:-

(a) to co-ordinate and regulate the activities and policies of the Regional Transport Authorities, if any, of the State;

(b) to perform the duties of a Regional Transport authority where there is no such Authority and, if it thinks fit or if so required by a Regional Transport Authority to perform those duties in respect of any route common to two or more regions;

(c) to settle all disputes and decide all matters on which differences of opinion arise between Regional Transport Authorities; and

[(ca) Government to formulate routes for plying stages carriages;]

(d) to discharge such other functions as may be prescribed.

(4) For the purpose of exercising and discharging the powers and functions specified in sub-section (3), a State Transport authority may, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, issue directions to any Regional Transport authority and the Regional Transport Authority shall, in the discharge of its functions under this Act, give effect to and be guided by such directions.”

The power of the State Transport authority under Section 68(3)(a) is, mainly, an administrative power to co-ordinate and regulate the activities of the Regional Transport Authorities. The same does not confer any power on the State Tra