LexS. KANNAN & OTHERS ETC. versus SECRETARY, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
B c D E F G H ?40 S. KANNAN & OTHERS ETC. v. SECRETARY, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT AUTHORITY August 29, 1983 1 [D. A. DESAI AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.J Motor Ve/tic/es Act, 1939-Sec. 63(7)-Al/ lndia Tourist Permit. Sec. 62 -Interpretation of. Sec. 62 does not co1nprehend power to gfant te1nporary. all India Tourist Permit-Expression Regional Transport Authofity in Sec. 62 does ·not comprehend State Transport Authority. Sec. 62(1) does not provide for grant Of temporary permits pending grant of a regular permit. · In order to promote tourism, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act for .short) was ameded in 1970 and sub-sec. (7) was inserted in s. ()3 empowering the State Transport Authority in each state to grant permits valid for the whole or any part of India in respect of such number of tourist vehicles as May be specified by the Central Government. The Central ,Governmerit specified that every State Transport Authority may grant such permit not exceeding 50 in number. The State Transport AuthorHy of Karnataka issued 36 such permits and there were 14 vacancies. Sev1~ral persons applied for temporary a.II India tourist permits to the State Transport Authority. The State Transport. Autho~ rity rejected the applications. On appeal the State Transport Appellate Tribunal purporting to exercise power under· s. 62 of the Act granted tempo· rary all India tourist permits. On writ petitions filed by some of the holders of regular permits under s. 63(7) the High Court quashed and set aside the decision Of the State Transport 1\.ppellate Tribunal. The appellants a·nd the petitioners who had obtained or " 1ere desirous of obtaining temporary all India tourist permits challenged the correctness of the decision of the High Court. The appellants urged: (1) that the Regional Transport Authority can grant temporary all-India tourist permits for the reasons mentioned in sec. 62; (2) that the State Transport Authority of Karnataka can grant temporary permits for the vacancies till regular all-India tourist permits were granted; (3) that in view of the provisions of sec. 44(3), the expression Regional Transport Authority would either comprehend State Transport Authority or would not atleast exclude tlfe power conferred on the lower authority to be enjoyed by the higher B:uthority; (4) that as far as the State of Karnataka was concerned, on the. issue of notification under sub-sec, (2A) of sec. 45 the expression •Regional Transport Authority' in sec. 62 will ~lso comprehend State Transport Al.!thority, and, (5) that th~ expression 'such permit' in sec. 63(7)_ could only . meail rC8ular or all India tourist permit and the temporary all India tourist permit was not to be catered to by sec. 63(7) but by sec. 62 and therefore sec. 62 was ri8htiy omitte.d from the array of sections set out in sec. 63(7) . . , Dismissing the appeals, special leave petitions and writ petitions, ' " !- ) i. KAMNAN '· Ji.l.ll.T.A. HELD : There is no powcr to 1mit' temporary all India touri.st pmllit under sec. 62. [757 E] An Authority having jurisdiction over a ~omparatively sma1l ar~ is 'favourably placed to notice a situation as contemplated by sec. 62. "Therefore, sec. 62 confers power on the Regional Transport Authority, the jurisdiction_ of which extends over a region which is u'ually a small part of the State to gr-ant temporary permits to operate vehicles for a Short period to meet ·some tempo~ rary or emergency requirement or pending the renewal of an already granted permit. There is intrinsic evidence in the laneuage of sec. 62 that this power was meant to be used by Regional Transport Authority for dealing with a situation within its small area. If Regio?al Transport Authority is not compe- tent to grant regular all India tourist permit, rio canon of construction Would permit the Court to cloth• µim with power to arant temporary all India. tourist permit. · [752 A·D] The Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation· v. The RtWionaJ Transport Authority, Raipur, [1965] 3 S.C.R. 786 rofcrred to. Section 62( 1)(9) does not pi"ovide for grant of temporary permits pendin& erant of a regular permit. On the contrary the first proviso to sec. 62(1) makes what is imPiicit in cl. (d) explicit by providina that a temporary permit under sec. 62 shall, in no case, be granted· in respect of any route or area specified in an application for the grant of a new permit under sec. 46 or sec.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.