Back
2016 Supreme(Online)(KER) 21787
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
SHAJI P.CHALY, J
LIJO GEORGE – Appellant
Versus
SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 27373/2016
Temporary permits can be granted if supported by legal precedent, despite general prohibitions in the Motor Vehicles Act.
Headnote:
Permit - Transport - Motor Vehicles Act Section 2 and 83 - The court analyzed the provisions of temporary permits and concluded that the laws allow reconsideration of temporary permits in specific cases, thus setting aside the order refusing a temporary extension.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, holder of a regular vehicle permit, sought a temporary permit to continue operations on a route. The application was declined based on the existing interpretation of the Motor Vehicles Act and a circular from the Transport Commissioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner’s contention, supported by a previous judgment, warranted a reconsideration of the application. It determined that the respondent should review the case in light of established legal principles.
Issues: Whether the denial of a temporary permit extension under the Motor Vehicles Act was lawful, given the petitioner’s argument and prior case law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that while the Motor Vehicles Act does not explicitly permit temporary extensions of regular permits, previous judgments indicate that reconsideration is necessary under specific circumstances related to continuity of routes.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to reconsider the application for a temporary permit.
J U D G M E N T
-------------------
Petitioner, a permit holder in respect of the vehicle No.KL-03L-7607, which is having a validity up to 06.04.2021, has submitted Ext.P2 application seeking temporary permit to operate in continuation of the existing regular permit on the route Kuravilangad to Njeezhoor. The said application was considered by the respondent pursuant to a direction issued by this court in W.P.(C)No.23854/2016 dated 25.07.2016 and declined holding that, “as per the Motor Vehicles Act , there is nothing called a temporary variation or extension of pacca permit” and as per Circular No.25/2002 of Transport Commissioner clearly specified, temporary extension cannot be allowed. It is in this background challenging Ext.P6 order dated 05.08.2016 this writ petition is filed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, W.P.(C)NO.27373 OF 2016 2 learned Government Pleader and perused the pleadings and the documents on record. The prime contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is based on Ext.P4 judgment rendered by this court in [ Balakrishana Travels Vs RTO Malappuram , (1982 KHC 181) ] and contended that in the said case the issue with respect to the grant of a temporary permit in continuation of a regular permit was considered and held that grant of a separate temporary permit is possible if the routes covered by the two permits are continuous. Per contra, learned Government Pleader contended that Ext.P6 order passed by the respondent is in accordance with law and there is no provision for grant of a temporary extension under the Motor Vehicles Act to a regular permit holder.
3. Taking into account, the respective submissions made across the bar and perusal of Ext.P4 judgment rendered by this court cited (supra), I am of the considered opinion that the respondent W.P.(C)NO.27373 OF 2016 3 can be directed to re-consider Ext.P2 application submitted by the petitioner, taking into account the proposition of law laid down by this court in Ext.P4 judgment. In order to enable the respondent to re- consider Ext.P2 application, Ext.P6 order is set aside and there will be a direction to the respondent to re-consider Ext.P2 application in accordance with law within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
