Back
Judges : U.L.BHAT,KRISHNAMOORTHY
Thomas Lucka - Appellant
Versus
Secretary R.T.A. - Respondent
Case No : W.A. No. 498 of 1991
Decided On : 07/11/1991
Advocates Appeared :
A. Inees For Petitioner Government Pleader (K. Thankappan) For Respondents
TIMINGS - Motor Vehicles Act - S.70, S.71, S.72, Rule 123, Rule 212 - The court discussed the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, particularly S.70, S.71, and S.72, which deal with the application for stage carriage permit, procedure of RTA in considering the application for stage carriage permit, and grant of stage carriage permits. The court also examined Rule 123 and Rule 212 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which relate to meetings of Regional Transport Authority and schedule of timings, respectively. The court highlighted the importance of timings in ensuring compliance with speed limits and eliminating unhealthy competition between operators. It emphasized the authority's power to modify timings in public interest and the right of existing operators to represent their case in the approval or modification of timings for a permit.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, an existing operator with a pucca permit on a specific route, challenged the timings granted to the third respondent, who was granted a temporary permit for a partly overlapping route. The dispute arose when the timings for the third respondent's stage carriage conflicted with the appellant's timings, leading to a series of orders and representations challenging the timings granted to the third respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the existing operators have a right to represent their case in the approval or modification of timings for a permit, and the authority has the power to modify timings in public interest. It held that the proviso to Rule 212 requires all interested permit holders to have an opportunity to represent their case when the timings of a service are sought to be varied.
Issues: The issues involved the approval and modification of timings for a stage carriage permit, the right of existing operators to represent their case, and the authority's power to modify timings in public interest.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that existing operators have a right to represent their case in the approval or modification of timings for a permit, and the authority has the power to modify timings in public interest. It interpreted the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules to emphasize the importance of timings in ensuring compliance with speed limits and eliminating unhealthy competition between operators.
Final Decision: The court reversed the impugned judgment, allowed the O.P., and directed the first respondent to consider the representation given by the appellant in regard to the timings and pass orders in accordance with the law.
Bhat, Ag. CJ.
Petitioner in O.P. No. 2529 of 1991 has filed this appeal challenging the dismissal of the O.P.
2. Appellant is an existing operator with a pucca permit on the Kottayam-Kunnonni route. Third respondent was granted temporary permit for 20 days under Ext.P2 on a partly overlapping route, with the timings shown therein. Appellant's stage carriage was passing through Palai at 8.57 AM. According to the timings given in Ext. P2, the third respondent's stage carriage will pass through Palai at 8.55 AM. Appellant filed a Revision Petition before the State Transport appellate Tribunal challenging the timings granted to the third respondent. The Tribunal directed the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, to consider the appellant's objections with notice to the third respondent, as is seen from Ext. P3 order. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, the first respondent, thereafter passed Ext. P4 order. According to this order, appellant's stage carnage will pass through Palai at 8.57 AM. and the third respondent's stage carriage will pass through Palai at 9 A.M. While matters remained so, the Regional Transport Authority granted a regular permit to the third respondent under Ext. P5 with a set of timings. By Ext. P5 the timings granted by Ext. P2 order to the third respondent were restored, that is the stage carriage of the third respondent will pass through Palai at 8.55 A.M. Ext. P5, it is noticed, refers to the timings as "settled timings". That does not appear to be correct. Thereupon appellant gave Ext. P6 representation to the first respondent against the timings given in Ext. P5. The first 'respondent sent Ext. P7 reply stating thai because of the interval of two minutes there is no clash of timings. Appellant thereupon filed the Writ
Petition challenging Exts. P5 and P7.
3. Learned Single Judge, adverting to Ss.70 and 71 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, took the view that once it is found that the timings would not offend the provisions of the Act regarding speed limit, the timings have to be approved, and at that stage likelihood of conflict with another operator would not arise, and the order approving the timings as contemplated under S.71(2) cannot be challenged by another operator already on the route or covering a part of the route on the ground that the said timings are in conflict with the timings given to his vehicle. Learned Single Judge further held that even accepting that there will be conflict with the timings given to such operators, there is no need for the Regional Transport Authority to give such operators an opportunity of being heard before the said timings are settled and the latter cannot challenge the timings approved. It is also indicated that the only aspect the Regional Transport Authority is bound to take into account while accepting the lime-table submitted along with an application is the one contemplated under S.71(2). Referring to the proviso to Rule 212 which states that the State or Regional Transport Authority shall not vary the timings of the service without giving all the interest permit holders an opportunity to represent their case, learned judge held that I he proviso has no role to play while considering the -question as to whether the time-table attached to the application for the grant of a permit is acceptable or not. It applies only where the Authority decides. from time to time to issue a general order prescribing the schedule of timings for stage carriages or prescribes a schedule of timings for each stage carriage by special order. Such a situation would arise only after the issuance of the permit on the basis of the order granting the permit with the time-table approved. The proviso would not, it is said, apply to the earlier stage of approving timings suggested by the applicant for a permit.
4. S.70 deals with application for stage carriage permit. Sub-section (1) requires that an application for a permit of a stage carriage should, as far as may be, c
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
