The main legal point established in the judgment is the overriding effect of Chapter VI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on the grant of temporary permits, particularly in cases of objectionable overlapping with notified routes.

Mr. K. Vinod Chandran, J.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of his application for the grant of four months temporary permit in the route Kaloor - Mattancherry and assails Exhibit P1 order of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority (for brevity "RTA"), as affirmed by Exhibit P5 judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (for brevity "STAT"), Ernakulam.

2. The petitioner, the owner of a stage carriage, applied for the grant of temporary permit in the vacant timings of another stage carriage, which had abandoned service long back. The application was rejected by Exhibit P1, for two reasons. Exhibit P1 found that the total length of the route sought for by the petitioner is 26 Kms. and there is objectionable overlapping of 10 Kms., in the notified routes of Trivandrum - Palakkad and Trivandrum - Kannoor Schemes. The scheme is notified by virtue of G.O.(P) No.42/2009/Trans. dated 14.07.2009; produced as Exhibit R3(a) in the present writ petition. Further, Exhibit P1 also found that to grant temporary permit there should be in existence a valid regular permit and the permit sought to be substituted having lapsed long before, the grant of temporary permit cannot be allowed. Exhibit P5 upheld the said order.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the permits issued in the Ernakulam city area is as per a notification issued under Section 71(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the fact that there is a vacancy in one of the regular permits would itself indicate that there is a need for operation in the said route. When the notification under Section 71(3) of the Act specifies the number of permits that could be granted in the city area; in this case, according to the petitioner 700 in number, then the same cannot be altered by a Scheme under Chapter VI of the Act. It is also contended that neither is there a notification brought out superseding or altering the earlier notification under Section 71(3); nor is it evident from Exhibit R3(a) that the said notification intended to supersede the earlier notification under Section 71(3). The petitioner also contends that if Exhibit R3(a) is to be considered to be a Scheme brought in, in supersession of the notification under Section 71(3), then there could be no private buses plying within the city area, since all of them are plying within the notified routes indicated in Exhibit P1. In such circumstance, it is the contention based on the decision in (M.P.S.R.T. Corporation v. R.T. Authority [AIR 1966 SC 156]) that a temporary need co-exists with the permanent need. That is to say, when there is a regular permit, that contemplates the need for a service in the said route and in the event of a vacancy in the route caused by the non-operation of the permit, then necessarily it postulates a temporary need. Hence, the petitioner maintains that the application filed under Section 87 of the Act for a temporary permit has to be considered as an application under sub-clause (c) of section (1) of Section 87 and the same was liable to be allowed.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation as well as the learned Government Pleader contends that vacancy now projected by the petitioner is not one arising normally on the discontinuance of a vehicle having a regular permit. The regular permit itself was abandoned long back and the fact that there was no service after the abandonment by the regular permit holder demonstrates that there is no temporary need as contemplated under Section 87 of the Act. The respondent-Corporation also contends that Chapter VI of the Act overrides Chapter V and any other law for the time being in force and; in the notified area or notified route, wherein a Scheme is published, there is a clear restriction under Section 104 of Chapter VI and the grant of temporary permits can only be as per the proviso to Section 104. The learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation relies on (A.P. S