Vaidialingam, J.@mdashIn this application, under Article 226 of the Constitution, Mr. Neelakanta Menon, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order for quashing the orders of the first and second respondents evidenced by Exts. P. 3 and P. 5. Ext. P. 3 is a memorandum issued by the Secretary to the Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam to the 4th respondent herein on 30-4-1959. Ext. P. 5 again is a memorandum issued to the petitioner himself by the Regional Transport Officer, Kottayam dated 24-9-1959 rejecting certain objections that appear to have been filed before it. The petitioner also seeks for the issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to direct the respondents 1 to 3 namely, the Regional Transport Officer, Kottayam, Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam, and the District Superintendent of Police, Kottayam respectively for seizing the bus No. K. L. K. 3287 belonging to the 4th respondent for the unauthorised operation and to proceed according to law against the 4th respondent.
2. In my opinion, the matter arising for consideration in this application lies within a narrow compass namely, the interpretation of section 63 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-Act IV of 1939.
3. According to Mr. Neelakanta Menon, learned counsel for the petitioner, the action of the respondents evidenced by Exts. P. 3 and P. 5 are without jurisdiction.
4. In order to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel, the circumstances under which this application has been filed, may be stated: The 4th respondent appears to have applied for the grant of a permit on the route Periyar to Thiruvella. It is stated that this route is about 62 miles in length and a minor part of it namely, a route covering a distance of about 31/2 miles, is situated in Alleppey District and the rest of the route is situated in the Kottayam District. There is no controversy that the necessary procedure for the grant of a permit has been observed by the appropriate authorities and ultimately, it is seen that the Regional Transport Authority, by its proceedings dated 20-2-1958, Ext. P. 1, decided to grant the permit in favor of the 4th respondent as desired. The petitioner, I am now informed, was not one of the objectors in those proceedings.
5. In consequence of the order, Ext. P. 1, it is also seen that a pucca permit namely, Ext. P. 2, has also been issued by the Regional Transport Authority on 25-4-1959. As certain contentions have been raised on the basis of the recitals in this permit by Mr. Neelakanta Menon, it is desirable that I advert to those aspects immediately.
6. The permit itself is No. P. S. P. K. 15/59 and the registration mark of the vehicle for which it is issued, is stated to be K. L. K. 3287 belonging to the 4th respondent. Item 5 relating to the route is stated as "Periyar-Thiruvella (via) Changanacherry." The permit itself is to be valid from 26-4-1959 to 25-4-1962. Condition No. 3 attached to the permit states that the Stage Carriage shall be used only on the route or area for which the permit is granted. The other matters mentioned therein, are not necessary.
7. Notwithstanding that the route for which the permit was granted, is an inter-district route, the 4th respondent appears to have also allowed his bus to go into the Alleppey District without getting the countersignature on the permit by the appropriate officer of that region. This resulted in the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam issuing the memorandum Ext. P. 3 dated 30-4-1959 wherein it is stated that the Sub-Inspector of Police Thiruvella has reported that the stage carriage K. L. K. 3287 is running to Thiruvella in Alleppey District without getting the permit K. P. S. P. 15/59 endorsed by the Regional Transport Authority, Alleppey. The memorandum finally winds up by stating:
Hence you are hereby directed to slop service of the bus in the portion of Alleppey District immediately as it is ascertained that the permit is not endorsed by the R.T. A., Alleppey.
The petitioner appears to have taken up the matter before the R. T. A., Kottayam proceeding on the basis that there had been really a fresh permit granted in favor of the 4th respondent for the stage carriage K. L. K. 3287 to run between two points in the Kottyam District itself.
8. The objections filed by the petitioner before the R. T. A. is Ext. P. 4 dated 1st September 1959. The R. T. A. by its memorandum dated 24-9-1959, Ext. P. 5 states that the direction given to the 4th respondent by the R. T. A. to restrict the operation of the vehicle covered by the permit for the route Periyar to Thiruvella within the Kottayam District is in order as per section 63 of the Motor Vehicles Act and that there is therefore, no reason to interfere with the present operation of the route between Periyar and Perunna. Ultimately the memorandum states that the complaint petitions filed by the petitioner, are rejected.
9. It is these two orders namely Exts. P. 3 and P. 5 that are sought to be quashed in these proceedings by the petitioner and I have also referred to certain other incidental prayers made in the application.
10. The contention of Mr. Neelakanta Menon, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the permit that was directed to be issued to the 4th respondent and that was actually issued to him under Ext. P. 2 is for the route Periyar to Thiruvella (via) Changanacherry. One of the conditions of the said permit namely, condition No. 3 was to the effect that the stage carriage shall be used only on the route or area for which the permit has been granted. The permit granted is for the entire route Periyar to Thiruvella and the 4th respondent has no right to start a stage carriage service notwithstanding the grant of a permit under Ext. P. 2 until it has been counter-signed by the R. T. A. at Alleppey under the provisions of Section 63 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Inasmuch as the same procedure for grant of a permit has been laid down u/s 63(2) of the Act in respect of the countersigning a permit by the R. T. A. of the other region, that procedure is now pending before the Alleppey Officer and as such, the 4th respondent has no authority to start the service and run the same even within the limits of Kottayam itself.
11. The learned counsel contended that the orders Exts. P. 3 and P. 5, which are under attack, in effect, amount to grant of a permit in favor of the 4th respondent authorizing him to run the stage carriage service within the limits of the Kottayam District under a permit which has been granted not for any area within the district, but really for an inter-district route namely, Periyar to Thiruvella.
12. Mr. Neelakanta Menon contended that the scheme of the Act will clearly show that there is no such power granted to the authorities, in the position of the respondents 1 and 2 and if the object was to grant a permit in favor of the 4th respondent to run the service within the limits of the Kottayam District, the proper procedure for that will be to notify the application for grant of permit and also receive objections and consider the said question in the light of any objections that may be filed.
13. The learned counsel also contended that parties, who would otherwise have objected, if the route is to be within Kottayam itself, may not have objected to this particular case in the original instance because all of them must have understood the application to refer to an inter-district route namely, Periyar to Thiruvella. By allowing the 4th respondent to run his service within the Kottayam District, it is the contention of the learned counsel, that the authorities concerned have practically short-circuited the provisions of the statute.
14. On the other hand, Mr. P. Govindan Nair, learned counsel for the 4th respondent, has contended that the misapprehension on the part of the petitioner is in proceeding on the basis that the orders covered by Exts. P. 3 and P. 5 amount to a grant of a permit or a fresh permit authorizing the 4th respondent to operate his service within the jurisdiction of the R. T. A., Kottayam. The learned counsel referred in this connection, to the provisions of Section 42 and also contended that what has now been done is really to place a restriction on the service, in view of the clear wording of section 63 of the Act.
15. After hearing the learned counsel on both sides, I am satisfied that the contentions of Mr. Neelakanta Menon in this regard, cannot be accepted. It is not really necessary for me to go into the various other sections of the Act, excepting to refer to sections 45 and 63 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
16. Section 45 indicates the procedure for making applications for permit. u/s 45, every application for a permit shall be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which it is proposed to use the vehicle or vehicles. The first proviso is to the effect that if it is proposed to use the vehicle or vehicles in two or more regions lying within the same State, the application shall be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which the major portion of the proposed route or area lies, and in case the portion of the proposed route or area in each of the regions is approximately equal, to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which it is proposed to keep the vehicle or vehicles. The second proviso deals with the forum for making the application where the vehicle is intended to ply over two or more regions lying in different States. It is not necessary for me to advert to this proviso. The first proviso is clear inasmuch as it indicates the forum for making the application. When the major portion of the proposed route lies within the jurisdiction of a particular Regional Transport Authority, then the application should be made to that authority. In other cases also the forum is clearly indicated.
17. The other provisions relied upon by Mr. Neelakanta Menon namely, Sections 46 and 47, are all procedural and there is no controversy in this case, that prior to the grant of the permit in favor of the 4th respondent, all those proceedings have been gone through.
18. Section 63, in my opinion, really puts a limitation to a permit which would otherwise entitle the grantee thereof to run the service to the fullest extent indicated therein. Section 63 deals with validation of permits for use outside region in which granted. Sub-section (1) of Section 63 is to the effect:
Except as may be otherwise prescribed, a permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority of any one region shall not be valid in any other region, unless the permit has been counter-signed by the Regional Transport Authority of that other region, and a permit granted in any one State shall not be valid in any other State unless counter-signed by the State Transport Authority of that other State or by the Regional Transport Authority concerned.
I am leaving out the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 63, as it is not now necessary. Sub-section (2) of Section 63 is as follows:
A Regional Transport Authority when counter-signing the permit may attach to the permit any condition which it might have imposed if it had granted the permit, and may likewise vary any condition attached to the permit by the Authority by which the permit was granted.
Sub-section (3) of the said Section provides that the provisions of this Chapter relating to the grant, revocation and suspension of permits shall apply to the grant, revocation and suspension of countersignatures of permits.
19. It was the contention of Mr. Neelakanta Menon that in view of the fact that the same procedure for the grant, revocation and suspension of permits is to apply for the grant, revocation and suspension of countersignatures of permits, an inter-district permit granted by a Regional Transport Authority of one District cannot be said to be complete till it has been counter-signed by the R. T. A. of the other region. In my opinion, it is not possible to accept this contention of Mr. Neelakanta Menon. There is absolutely no intention in section 63 of the statute to show that a permit granted by the R. T. A. is not valid even within its region. On the other hand, if at all, the section clearly indicates the other way. Sub-section (1) of Section 63, which I have already extracted, is to the effect that a permit granted by the R. T. A. of any one region shall not be valid in any other region. There are absolutely no words to the effect in Section 63, that an inter-district permit granted by one R. T. A. shall not come into operation, or shall have no force or effect at all till it has been countersigned by the R. T. A. of the other region. If the intention of the Legislature was that an inter-district permit granted by one R. T. A. is not complete, or does not have any force till it has been countersigned by the R. T. A. of the other district, it would have certainly expressed this in clearer and more explicit terms in Section 63. On the other hand, section 63 itself gives an indication that the permit granted by the R. T. A. of any one region will be valid within its region but it shall not be valid in any other region. The reference to ''any other region'' in sub-section (1) must relate to the region in the other district in respect of which counter-signature of the R. T. A. is necessary. Therefore, the party, who has obtained an inter-district permit from one Regional Transport Authority, in my opinion, will be entitled to run his service within the limits of that particular R. T. A., and what is prohibited under sub-section (1) of Section 63 is that he will not be entitled to run the service in the other region on the basis of the permit granted by the original R. T. A., that right, he will get only if the permit is countersigned by the R. T. A. of the other district also.
20. Mr. Neelakanta Menon referred me to an order of the Travancore-Cochin High Court of Sankaran & Nandana Menon JJ, in C.M.P. 332/56 in O. P. 286 of 1956. That was an interlocutory order passed by the learned Judges, pending the disposal of a writ petition. I do not find any reference to section 63 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the learned Judges specifically state that they do not express any opinion on the merits that arise for decision in the main O. P. 286 of 1956. Therefore, an interim order passed by the lerned Judges, taking into account certain circumstances that appear to have been placed before the learned Judges, in my opinion, cannot be considered to be decisive of the interpretation to be placed on Section 63 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Nor am I satisfied that the decision in
21. The order, Ext. P. 3, in my opinion, cannot be considered to be the grant of a fresh permit in favor of the 4th respondent authorising him to run his stage carriage within the limits of the R. T. A., Kottayam. On the other hand, that fully satisfies and complies with the provisions of Section 63 extracted above, inasmuch as it directs the 4th respondent not to run his service to Alleppey District, without getting the countersignature of the R. T. A. of the Alleppey District.
22. Mr. Neelakanta Menon raised a contention that the memorandum or order Ext. P. 3 issued by the Secretary, R. T. A. is without jurisdiction. The question of jurisdiction of that officer to issue the memorandum or order, in my opinion, does not in any way help the petitioner, because that is not a memorandum or order directed as against the petitioner. If anybody is aggrieved by that, it should be the 4th respondent, because it is he who is directed not to run his service in the Alleppey District without getting the counter-signature of the R. T. A. on the permit. In any event, in view of the order Ext P. 5 namely, the order of the R. T. A., Kottayam approving of the action of the Secretary, R. T. A., Kottayam Ext. P. 3 places the matter beyond ail doubt that even the competent officer according to Mr. Neelakanta Menon namely, the R. T. A., Kottayam is also of the view that the restriction placed upon the 4th respondent from taking his service into the Alleppey District on the basis of the permit already issued comes within the terms of Section 63 of the Act. No other question arises for consideration, and this application is dismissed with costs of the 4th respondent.
