Back
2003 Supreme(Ker) 446
Judges : CYRIAC JOSEPH,K.PADMANABHAN NAIR
N.Vineetha - Appellant
Versus
The Regional Transport Authority - Respondent
Case No : WA.No. 1242 Of 2003
Decided On : 07/30/2003
Advocates Appeared :
For the Appellant: C.K.Sreejith, Advocate. For the Respondents: T.N. Latheef, Government Pleader.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act 1988 – Section 80(2), 66, 71, 74 – Illegal – Liable – Grant of a permit – Impugned judgment – Learned Single Judge dismissed Original Petition at admission stage observing that attempt of petitioner is to get lesser running time to operate at high speed and not to limit number of stops – According to learned Single Judge distance is stated to be only 60 K.Ms. and petitioner has not established any case for granting any limited stop operation especially where vehicle plying is through village areas where there are large number of stops – Aggrieved by dismissal of Original Petition appellant has filed this appeal – Held, Since Regional Transport Authority has not given any reasons for taking Ext.P1 decision and has not communicated reasons for refusal of permit to appellant and since Regional Transport Authority has not given him an opportunity of being heard in matter, Ext.P1 decision is illegal and arbitrary and is liable to be set aside – When it is found that application for permit was not considered in accordance with provisions contained in statute, proper course is to set aside decision and to direct authority to consider application afresh in accordance with statutory provisions – It is neither proper nor prudent to justify impugned decision by guessing or presuming what would have persuaded authority to take such a decision – Authority should be made to comply with statutory provision and state its own reasons for decision – Petition is Allowed
Cyriac Joseph, J.
1. This appeal is filed against the judgment dated 30th May, 2003 in O.P.No.9676 of 2003. Appellant is the petitioner in the Original petition.
2. The learned Government pleader accepted notice for the respondents. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties the Writ Appeals has been finally heard and is being disposed of.
3. The appellant had filled an application for grant of regular Stage Carriage permit to operate service on the route Kannur Railway Station – Koottupuzha via. Kannur NBS, Mattannur, Iritty as Limited Stop Ordinary Service. The said application was considered by the Regional Transport Authority, Kannur at its meeting held on 17.2.2003 and the following decision was taken:
“Granted as ordinary service subject to settlement of timings vehicle No: KL-13/G 5373.”
A copy of the above decision was communicated to the appellant for information and he was directed to produce the current records of he vehicle within 30days. Aggrieved by the refusal of the Regional Transport Authority, kannur to grant the permit to operate as Limited Stop Ordinary Service, the appellant filed O.P.No9676 of 2003 praying for a direction to the first respondent Regional Transport Authority, kannur to reconsider the matter and grant regular permit to operate as Limited stop Ordinary service. The appellant also prayed for a direction to the first respondent to convert the permit already granted as limited Stop Ordinary Service. The learned single judge dismissed the Original Petition at the admission stage observing that the attempt of he petitioner is to get lesser running time to operate at high speed and not to limit the number of stops. According to the learned single judge “the distance is stated to be only 60 K.Ms. And the petitioner has not established any case for granting any limited stop operation especially where the vehicle plying is through the village areas where there are large number of stops”. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the Original petition the appellant has filed this appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per Ext.P1 decision the Regional Transport Authority, Kannur rejected the appellant’s application for regular stage carriage permit to operate service as Limited stop Ordinary service. The appellant had not applied for any permit to operate service as Ordinary service. It is contended that before rejecting the application for permit to operate service as Limited stop Ordinary Service the Regional Transport Authority should have given to the appellant an opportunity of being heard and should have given in writing the reasons for the refusal. Learned counsel relies on the Second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is extracted hereunder:
80. Procedure in applying for and granting permits: -
2. A Regional Transport Authority, State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority referred to in sub-section (1) of section 66 shall not ordinarily refuse to grant an application for permit of any kind made at any time under this Act:
Provided that the Regional Transport Authority, State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority referred to in sub-section (1) of section 66 may summarily refuse the application if the grant of any permit in accordance with the application would have the effect of increasing the number of stage carriages as fixed and specified in a notification in the official Gazette under clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Sec.71, or of contract carriages as fixed an specified in a notification in the Official Gazette under clause (a) of subsection (3) of Sec.74:
Provided further that where a Regional Transport Authority. State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority referred to in sub-section (1) of section 66 refuses an application for the grant of a permit of any kind under this Act, it shall give to the applicant in writing its reasons for the refusal of the same and an opportunity of being heard in the ma
