A temporary permit under Section 87(1)(d) can only be granted when a valid application for permit renewal is pending.

1. Petitioner is a stage carriage operator on a regular permit on the route Guruvayur-Kozhikode. He was operating his vehicle as limited stop ordinary service. Permit was covered by a stage carriage KL-8/A 7695. Regular permit in respect of the said vehicle expired on 5-5-1998. Petitioner submitted an application for renewal of the permit. Being an inter district route, concurrence has to be obtained from sister authorities, ie., Regional Transport Authority, Kozhikode and Trichur, before renewing the same. According to petitioner that procedure is yet to be completed.

2. Petitioner, in the meantime, submitted an application before the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram, for a temporary permit pending renewal of the regular permit. Application was preferred under S.87(1)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Temporary permit was sought for stage carriage No. KL-7/T 7353, a 1997 model vehicle. Even though it was an inter district route, Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram, issued temporary permit on 3-7-1998 for a period of four months, which expired on 5-11-1998. According to petitioner, he submitted yet another application on 21-10-1998 for temporary permit for another four months. Petitioners submitted that the said application was found to be missing in the office of the Secretary and consequently he filed yet another application on 13-11-1998, which was rejected by the Secretary vide Ext. P3 order dated 13-11-1998 stating that application cannot be entertained since regular permit in respect of stage carriage KL-8/A 7695 has already expired on 5-5-1998. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner has approached this Court.

3. According to petitioner, Ext. P3 order cannot be sustained. Counsel submitted that Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, is bound to consider the application for temporary permit in accordance with S.87(1)(d) of the Act, pending decision on application for renewal of regular permit. Counsel also referred to a decision of this Court in Hassan Kunju v. R.T.O. Palakkad, 1997 (1) KLT 476.

4. Learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted that petitioner did not submit the application for renewal in time. According to learned Government Pleader, petitioner submitted the application for renewal only on 2-5-1998. This fact is not disputed by counsel for the petitioner. Learned Government Pleader further submitted that petitioner should have filed the application 15 days prior to the date of expiry of the regular permit. Therefore, there was delay in submitting the application, and hence there is no proper application pending before the authority. Learned Government Pleader further submitted that temporary permit also cannot be given to the petitioner by the Secretary, since no proper application is pending. Learned Government Pleader also submitted that since the route is an inter district route, Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, has no jurisdiction to issue a permit without getting concurrence or counter signature from the Regional Transport Authorities of Kozhikode and Trichur.

5. I heard Smt. Sumathi Dandapani, counsel for the petitioner, and Sri. N. Reghu Raj, Government Pleader. The period of the regular permit of the petitioner's vehicle expired on 5-5-1998. The primary authority which issued the permit is the Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram. Before renewing the permit, primary authority has to obtain concurrence or counter signature from the Regional Transport Authorities of Kozhikode and Trichur. In the instant case, the main question to be considered is whether there is