Court directions for timely permit consideration bind authority to pre-existing law despite later standards.

JUDGMENT :

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J.

The petitioner submitted Ext. P1 application for grant of regular permit to operate service on the route Koovappady– Perumbavoor–Panamkuzhy as an ordinary mofussil service under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for brevity). The Secretary, RTA, conducted an enquiry through the field officer of the Department. The Motor Vehicles Inspector, who conducted the field enquiry, by Ext. P2, reported that the total distance of the route is 26.5 km, of which only a small portion of 1.2 km falls within a notified sector, constituting less than 5% of the total route distance, and is therefore unobjectionable. It was further reported that the proposed route would be beneficial to the travelling public to Perumbavoor. With regard to the timings, it was stated that the same may be settled after affording an opportunity of hearing to other operators as well.

2. After obtaining the report, the 1^st respondent considered the application in its meeting held on 23.12.2023. The petitioner states that there was absolutely no objection from any source. However, the 1^st respondent adjourned the decision by Ext. P3, observing that the petitioner had not offered a ready vehicle at the time of consideration of the application and that it was necessary to ascertain whether a regular stage carriage permit could be granted on the said route.

3. On the basis of the direction in Ext. P3, the Sub Regional Transport Officer conducted a re-enquiry of the application and reported that the fitness certificate for the portion where there is no existing service has been obtained from the concerned authorities. It was further reported that the overlap of 1.2 km is less than 5% of the total route length and is therefore unobjectionable. It was also found that the proposed road has sufficient width for operating a stage carriage service.

4. The 1^st respondent, for the second time, considered the application in its meeting held on 17.08.2024. The petitioner states that, on this occasion as well, there was no objection from any source. However, by Ext. P4, the 1^st respondent again adjourned the application, stating that the applicant should furnish the registration mark of the vehicle before grant of permit and that vehicle should be owned by him. The petitioner further states that, though the production of a ready vehicle is not a requirement for grant of permit, he nevertheless, in compliance with the direction in Ext. P4, purchased vehicle No. KL-17 AI 1177 and after obtaining transfer of ownership, produced the current records of the said vehicle for grant of permit.

5. On production of the current records as directed in Ext. P4, the 1^st respondent, for the third time, considered the application in its meeting held on 18.01.2025. The petitioner states that even at that time, there was absolutely no objection from any quarters. However, by Ext. P6, the 1^st respondent again adjourned the application stating that the route applied for comprised seven different routes with different termini included in a single application. It was further observed that, in view of the provisions of Section 2(38) of the Act, the grant of permit for more than one route is not contemplated. The petitioner was therefore directed to modify the time schedule and regulation of service on a single route of his choice, in compliance with the provisions of the Act and Section 13 of the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961.

6. Challenging Ext. P6, the petitioner