K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Question that has come up for consideration in this case is whether Regional Transport Authority is justified in granting a stage carriage permit in respect of a route with such modification as it deems fit when an application is preferred for permit.
2. Petitioner applied for a regular permit to operate on the route Pariyapuram-Kuttipuram, via, Angadipuram, Permthalmanna, Palachode, Kulathur, Vengad, Valancheri and KSDC. The proposed, route was intra-district route lying whole within the jurisdiction of the first respondent: Application was preferred on 28-7-1998, Application came up for consideration before the Regional Transport Authority on 28-10-1998. Regional Transport Authority passed the following order :
"Heard. Granted subject to settlement of timings and subject to the condition that the vehicle conducts service from Perintalmanna to Kulathur 2 more trips in between 8 a.m. to 10 a.m. and 2 trips in between 3 p.m. to 5 p.m."
Petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, and preferred appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. Since Tribunal is not functioning, petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order of the Regional Transport Authority.
3. When the matter came up for admission, I heard counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Pleader. Counsel for the petitioner Sri. P. Ravindran submitted that Regional Transport Authority while considering the application under Section 71 of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot travel beyond the particulars mentioned in the application. Section 70 prescribes the particulars to be contained in an application for stage carriage permit. Application was preferred by the petitioner for operating on the route Pariyapuram Kuttipuram. According to him, Regional Transport Authority was not justified in imposing additional trips between Perinthalmanna and Kulathur. Counsel relied upon the proviso to Section 72(1) which says that no permit shall be granted in respect of any route or area not specified in the application. Counsel also made reference to the decision of this Court in Girijadevi v. K.T. Mathew, (1990) 2 KLT 353.
4. Learned Government Pleader Sri N. Reghu Raj on the other hand contended that Regional Transport Authority has got jurisdiction to grant permit with such modification as it deems fit. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the proviso to Section 72(1) is not applicable to the facts of the case, since permit was issued only in respect of the route specified in the application.
5. I find force in the contention of learned Government Pleader. Petitioner's application itself shows that permit is sought for via. Angadipuram, Perinthalmanna, Palachode, Kulathur, Vengad, Valancheri and KSDC. Regional Transport Authority has granted the per-
mil only in respect of route or area specified in the application. Regional Transport Authority has only imposed a condition that vehicle should conduct service between Perinthalmanna and Kulathur two trips in between 8 A.M. and 10 A.M. and two trips in between 3 P.M. and 5 P.M. Timings itself show that it is to cater to the needs of travelling public, especially the college and school going students and employed persons. Petitioner has not questioned the necessity of such additional trips in the writ petition, as well as in the memorandum of appeal filed before the Tribunal. The question raised is with regard to jurisdiction of the Authority in view of the proviso to Section 72(1). Section 72(1) reads as follows :
"72. Grant of stage carriage permits. (1) Sub-ject to the provisions of Sectional, a Regional Transport Authority may, on an application made to it under. Section 70, grant a stage carriage permit in accordance with the application or with such modification as it deems fit or refuse to grant such a permit :
Provided that no such permit shall be granted in respect of any route or area not specified in the application."
6. Section 72(1) says that Regional Transport Authority may grant a stage carriage permit in accordance with the application or with such modifications as it deems fit. The expressions 'as it deems fit', 'as it thinks fit', etc., are expressions which confer wide jurisdiction on the authority to take entirely a different view on the same set of facts. The expression 'as he deems fit' was interpreted by the Supreme Court in R.M. Paranjype v. A.M. Mali, AIR 1962 SC 753 to mean to make an order in terms of the statute, an order which would give effect to a right which the Act has elsewhere conferred. Evidently, while issuing permits the primary consideration of the authority is the convenience of the general public. Therefore in the interest of general public, two additional trips in the morning and two additional trips in the evening were ordered by the Regional Transport Authority. I am of the view that Regional Transport Authority is perfectly justified in imposing the condition for granting the permit.
In the said circumstances, writ petition lacks merits and the same is dismissed.