IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 27TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 33911 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- REMA K.N., KARULLI PUTHENPURA KUNNAKKAL, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY MUVATTUPUZHA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRIVANDRUM. 4. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.N.SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.33911 of 2008 ------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of November, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner, who is the owner of a stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-17/A-7951, applied for a temporary permit in the vacancy caused by another stage carriage operating on the route Irapuram- Thodoupzha. A temporary permit was issued as per Ext.P1. The petitioner has sought for re-issue of the temporary permit. This was rejected under Ext.P2. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner under Ext.P3 and the same was also rejected under Ext.P4. The tribunal observed that there is a draft notification issued by the Government proposing the route Aluva-Kattappana, as a total exclusion route and the draft notification itself prohibits issuance of temporary permits and consequently, the application for re-issue of temporary permits cannot be considered. Ext.P4 is under challenge. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and learned standing counsel for the KSRTC. W.P.(C).NO.33911/08 :: 2 :: 3. Section 99(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as follows: “99(2). Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), when a proposal is published under that sub-section, then from the date of publication of such proposal, no permit shall be granted to any person, except a temporary permit during the pendency of the proposal and such temporary permit shall be valid only for a period of one year from the date of its issue or till the date of final publication of the scheme under Section 100, whichever is earlier.” 4. Admittedly, the notification is a draft notification. The statutory provision does not contemplate a prohibition against issuance of even temporary permits during currency of a draft notification. What is prohibited is only the issuance of a regular permit. This is a case where the draft notification does not carry any legal impediments, except what is provided under the statute. The notification will acquire finality only when it is published as a final notification. Only because a draft notification contemplates a prohibition as regards regular permits, it will not, ipso facto, deter the transport authorities from considering applications for re-issue of W.P.(C).NO.33911/08 :: 3 :: temporary permits. The exercise of authority by the Regional Transport Authority and the State Transport Appellate Tribunal will have to be governed by the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. 5. In the result, Exts.P2 and P4 are set aside and the Regional Transport Authority is directed to consider the petitioner's application for re-issue of temporary permits and issue fresh orders within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after notice to the KSRTC also. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment and a copy of the writ petition before the 1st respondent. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge