ORDER
George Vadakkel, J.
1. A firm operating bus service on different routes is the petitioner herein. As per Ext. P-6, the second respondent, R.T.A., Trichur decided that there is real need and necessity for a direct bus service on the route Puthenve-likkara-Chalakudy touching Krishnan-kotta and on that basis the application for grant of temporary permit to operate service on that route put in by the third respondent was allowed. There were two applicants for temporary permits on that route, viz., the third respondent and one Damodaran Pillai. The latter’s application was rejected since he was absent. Ext. P-6 is challenged before me by the petitioner-firm.
2. The main ground, in fact the only ground, raised before me is that Ext. P-6 does not mention any particular temporary need. It is argued that Ext. P-3 application filed by the third respondent does not mention any particular need as contemplated by Section 62 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. It is contended that Ext. P-6 is bad for these reasons, and that the case falls partly within the ambit of the decision of my learned brother, Poti, J in Govindan v. R. T. A., Cannanore, 1972 Ker LT 242 = (AIR 1972 Ker 243). It is argued on behalf of the third respondent that the second respondent was convinced of the fact that there was need and necessity for issue of permanent permits in respect of the route, and to meet the urgent need of the public for facilities of travel till pacca services are introduced Ext. P-6 temporary permit was issued. The decision of my learned brother Eradi, J. in 9. P. No. 988 of 1973 (Ker.) is relied on in support of this contention. Therein Eradi, J. relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in M. P. S. R. T. Corporation v. R. T. Authority, AIR 1966 SC 156, said:–
“It is now beyond doubt in view of the pronouncement by the Supreme Court in AIR 1966 SC 156 that the unsatisfied demand of the public for the provision of a stage carriage service pending the completion of proceedings for the grant of a pucca permit for regularly meeting a permanent need constitutes a temporary need under Clause (c) to Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act.” The learned Judge after examining the decision of the R.T.A. in that case in the light of the notings contained in the concerned file of the R.T.A. upheld the grant of temporary permit.
3. In A. P. State Road Transport Corporation v. K. Venkitaramireddy (1970) 1 SCWR 617 the Supreme Court said:–
“In the application which was filed ‘by the appellant for grant of the temporary permits in Form 32 which has been prescribed with reference to Rule 126 (a) (vi) of the Rules no purpose has been indicated against item No. 4 which requires the purposes to be indicated for which the stage carriage permit is required. A letter was addressed by the appellant to the Secretary, State Transport Authority, on August 24, 1966. Even in that letter the purpose or the reason for the issue of a temporary permit was not stated. In our opinion it is wholly futile to go into any of the points which were agitated before the learned single Judge and the Division Bench or the High Court. There can be no manner of doubt that in the absence of any purpose or reason for which temporary permits were asked for the Regional Transport Authority should have dismissed the application in limine because a temporary permit can be granted only if the permit is required for the purpose or reasons mentioned from (a) to (d) in Section 62 of the Act. In spite of every effort on the part of the learned counsel for the appellant to look for any document which would fulfil the requirement of a valid application under Section 62 nothing could be shown to us which would indicate the purpose for which the appellant asked for the grant of a temporary permit.”
This passage also indicates that the Court is entitled to take note of ‘documents which will fulfil the requirement of a valid application under Section 62’ of the Act.
4. It is no doubt true that Ext. P-3 mentions the purpose only as ‘Temporary stage carriage permit’. In Ext. P-2, the covering letter, the third respondent states that there is urgent necessity for bus service on the route for the reason that it is agricultural season. Ext. P-4 is the report of the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Trichur. He says in that report that from 1-9-1973 two stage carriages were operating on the route, that these vehicles were not operating from last week of October, 1973, that the public are therefore put to much hardship and that since it was the season of Mandalam and many other festivals there was urgent temporary need to provide a stage carriage service on the route.
5. The concerned files reveal that on 14-8-1969 the second respondent sanctioned a fresh temporary permit in respect of a bus KLR 7707 to extend the service on Chalakkudy-Puthenvelikkara route to Krishnankotta; that by successive transfers this bus happened to be owned by Sri S. Damodaran Pillai referred to in Ext. P-6; that this bus was off the road bv Mav 1973 and that there were requests by the bus passengers’ association, Elenthikara, Karshaka Samajam, Poyya Mandalam Congress Committee and other organisations pointing out the hardships the travelling public of the area are put to. Though a temporary permit was issued to Sri Damodaran Pillai, it appears that he did not produce the necessary records. The third respondent by his application dated 31-7-1973 applied in the aforesaid circumstances for temporary permit for the unexpired period upto 27-8-1973 in respect of his bus KLR 7904. At its meeting held on 29-8-1973 two temporary permits were sanctioned on this route since the R.T.A. felt that there was necessity for more than one service. These permits were issued to Sri Damodaran Pillai and the third respondent. These grants were questioned by a third operator in M. V A. R. P No. 69 of 1973. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal by order dated 8-10-1973 set aside the decision of the second respondent. The grantees were directed to make fresh applications specifying the particular temporary need. Ext. P-3 application dated 12-10-1973 was thereafter filed by the third respondent. From the files it is further seen that the third respondent put in a supplementary representation dated 30-11-1973 praying that it may be treated as a covering letter to his application. Therein he pointed out that the holder of the pucca permit has defaulted service, and that substitute temporary permit granted was also defaulted. He pointed out that there was need for a bus service on the route as pointed out by the Motor Vehicles Inspector, and that there is ‘temporary need coming under Section 62 (1) (c) of the M. V. Act’. The second respondent at its meeting on 30-11-1973 after hearing the applicants and objectors adjourned consideration of the applications and directed to ascertain necessity in the meanwhile. Ext. P-4 already referred to is the enquiry report. The third respondent put in a further supplementary statement on 20-12-1973 pointing out that ‘necessity has been found for the grant of a pucca permit’ and that he may be granted a temporary permit under ‘Section 62 (c)’ of the M. V. Act. In the light of these facts, I am of the view that this case falls within the ambit of the decision in O. P. No. 988 of 1973. The grant of temporary permit as per Ext. P-6 was ‘to meet a particular temporary need’ as envisaged by Section 62 (1) (c) of the Act, viz., to meet the unsatisfied demand of the public for a bus service pending the finalisation of proceedings for the grant of pucca permits.
6. The O. P. fails and the same is dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs.
