SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1980 Supreme(Ker) 20

Judges : V.P.GOPALAN NAMBIYAR,V.BALAKRISHNA ERADI,G.VISWANATHA IYER
NARAYANAN - Appellant
Versus
R.T.A., TRICHUR - Respondent
Case No : O.P. No. 234,1548 etc. of 1979
Decided On : 01/15/1980
Advocates Appeared :
Thampan Thomas, K. P. Radhakrishna Menon, K Neelakanta Menon, P. Gopalakrishnan, V. M. Nayanar, K. K. Ravindranath & K C. Sankaran For Petitioners V. Sivaraman Nair. V. M. Nayanar, K. C. Sankaran, A. Inees Chiriyankandath, M. Krishnakwnar, K. George Mathew Kalapurackal & Government Pleader For Respondents

The mention of the vehicle by an applicant in the application itself can be a factor for granting the permit if all other qualifications are equal.

Headnote:

Motor Vehicles Act - Stage Carriage Permit - S.46, R.175, R.186 - The court clarified that an applicant for a stage carriage permit is not obligated to furnish particulars of the vehicle proposed to be used in the application. The court emphasized that the relevant point of time for evaluating the qualifications of rival applicants is the date on which the Regional/State Transport Authority considers the applications. The court held that if all other qualifications are equal, the mention of the vehicle by an applicant in the application itself can be a factor for granting the permit in his favor. The court also highlighted the potential abuse of the system by applicants who acquire new vehicles or manipulate their existing fleet to gain an advantage at the time of consideration. The court declined to grant leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Fact of the Case:

The court considered multiple writ petitions challenging the grant of stage carriage permits under the Motor Vehicles Act. The petitions involved disputes over the qualifications of applicants and the relevance of specifying the vehicle in the permit application.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the mention of the vehicle in the application can be a factor for granting the permit if all other qualifications are equal. The court also highlighted the potential abuse of the system by applicants who acquire new vehicles or manipulate their existing fleet to gain an advantage at the time of consideration.

Issues: The main issue was whether an applicant for a stage carriage permit is obligated to furnish particulars of the vehicle proposed to be used in the application.

Ratio Decidendi: The relevant point of time for evaluating the qualifications of rival applicants is the date on which the Regional/State Transport Authority considers the applications. If all other qualifications are equal, the mention of the vehicle by an applicant in the application itself can be a factor for granting the permit in his favor.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions and declined to grant leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Judgment :-

1. The common question of law arising in these cases for an authoritative pronouncement on which these writ petitions have been referred to a Full Bench is whether under the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the rules framed thereunder an applicant for the grant of a stage carriage permit, who had specified in his application itself the particulars of the vehicle which he proposes to put on the road in the event of the permit being granted in his favour, is entitled merely, on that account, to be preferred for the grant of the permit in relation to other applicants who, though shown to be possessed of equal or even better qualifications as on the date of consideration of the matter by the Regional or State Transport Authority, had not specifically furnished in their applications the particulars of the vehicles proposed to be used by them for operating the service in the event of the permit being granted to them. In Vypeen Transport Corporation (P) Ltd. & Others v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Trichur & Others, 1960 KLT. 1058, a Division Bench of this court observed:

"S. 20(2) of the Act defines 'permit' as the document authorising the use of a transport vehicle or a carrier vehicle. R.175 of the Motor Vehicles Rules insists that the registration mark of the vehicle be copied in the permit from the certificate of registration itself. The Form prescribed for an application for 'permit' also shows that the details of the vehicle concerned should be furnished in the application. If one has not the vehicle at the time of his making the application, it cannot be understood how he would be able to give the details of the vehicle in his application The provisions of the Act and the Rules thus indicate clearly that the applicant is expected to own the vehicle for whose use as a stage carriage he wants the permit in question. It follows therefore that an applicant who owns a bus has a better claim for permit than one who intends to acquire a vehicle. Needless to say that applicants who intend to purchase a vehicle after getting the permit deserve little consideration."

2. When these writ petitions came up for hearing before a Division Bench the writ petitioners contended that the aforesaid view expressed in Vypeen Transport Corporation's case, 1960 KLT. 1058, cannot be regarded as correct or sound in the light of the subsequent pronouncement by a Full Bench of this court in Cannanore Dist. Motor Transport Employees Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Maalbar Public Conveyance, 1962 KLT. 446, and by the Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Mangrulpir Joint Motor Service Co. (P) Ltd, and others, AIR.1971 SC. 1804, that the relevant date, with reference to which the relative qualifications and merits of the rival applicants have to be evaluated, is the date on which the Regional/State Transport Authority takes up the subject for consideration and not any anterior date and that hence the said rulings require reconsideration. The Division Bench considered that there was prima facie force in the said contention and hence referred these cases to a Full Bench so that there may be an authoritative pronouncement on the question.

3. The particulars to be contained in an application for a stage carriage permit have been specified in S.46 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called the Act). That section reads:

'An application for a permit in respect of a service of stage carriages or to use a particular motor vehicle as a stage carriage (in this Chapter referred to as a stage carriage permit) shall, as far as may be, contain the following particulars, namely:

(a) the route or routes or the area or areas to which the application relates;

(b) the number of vehicles it is proposed to operate in relation to each route or area and the type and seating capacity of each such vehicle;

(c) the minimum and maximum number of daily trips proposed to be provided in relation to each route or area and the




















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top