The Kerala High Court has reaffirmed that administrative decisions on temporary permits under the Motor Vehicles Act must be made on fresh consideration, free from the influence of prior adverse orders. This ruling reinforces the principle that procedural fairness cannot be compromised by mechanical adherence to past rejections.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, a stage carriage operator, applied for a temporary permit under Section 81(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act to operate on the Iyyad-Perambra route following the vacancy left by another vehicle. His application was rejected by the Regional Transport Authority (RTA) in Ext.P3 order dated 27.03.2025 without adequate reasoning.
Procedural History
The petitioner appealed to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, which initially granted an interim order on 17.05.2025 (Ext.P4) directing the RTA to issue a temporary permit for 40 days. However, when the appeal was finally heard on 22.11.2025, the Tribunal passed Ext.P5, upholding the RTA’s rejection - despite the earlier interim direction and without addressing the petitioner’s substantive claims. Crucially, Ext.P5 introduced new reasons not present in Ext.P3, violating principles of natural justice.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of Ext.P5 and a direction to grant the temporary permit. He argued that the Tribunal’s order was arbitrary, based on undisclosed grounds, and contradicted its own interim order.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an appellate tribunal may uphold a rejection of a temporary permit application by relying on reasons not originally given by the first authority, and whether prior interim relief creates an obligation to decide the matter on merits without prejudice.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on State of U.P. v. Mohammad Jaffar to argue that administrative decisions must be reasoned and transparent. He contended that the Tribunal’s reliance on new grounds in Ext.P5 violated the doctrine of audi alteram partem. He further emphasized that the interim order granting temporary operation constituted a prima facie finding of merit, making the final rejection without fresh evaluation arbitrary.
For the Respondent
The State contended that the interim order was merely procedural and did not bind the Tribunal’s final decision. It argued that the RTA’s rejection was based on operational grounds and that the Tribunal was entitled to review the application afresh, even if it introduced new reasons.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of interim relief under the Motor Vehicles Act and the obligations of appellate tribunals. It held that an interim order granting temporary operation is not a mere procedural formality - it reflects a preliminary assessment of the applicant’s prima facie entitlement. The Court observed that the Tribunal’s final order, which introduced new grounds absent from the original rejection, denied the petitioner a fair opportunity to respond.
"The Tribunal cannot, in its final order, introduce reasons not considered by the first authority and thereby deprive the petitioner of a meaningful hearing."
The Court further noted that the petitioner had not operated the vehicle since the interim order expired, rendering the original dispute technically moot. However, it emphasized that the underlying legal principle - fair adjudication of permit applications - remained vital. The Court declined to decide the merits of the permit application itself, instead directing a fresh application and adjudication.
The Verdict
The petitioner prevailed. The Court held that administrative decisions on temporary permits must be based on fresh, reasoned evaluation, unswayed by prior adverse orders or undisclosed grounds. The Tribunal’s Ext.P5 order was set aside, and the petitioner was granted leave to file a fresh application.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Fresh Evaluation Is Mandatory
- Practitioners must insist that authorities do not rely on prior rejections when adjudicating renewed or appealed permit applications
- Any new grounds raised at appellate level must be disclosed and afforded opportunity of rebuttal
- Interim orders granting temporary operation create a presumption of prima facie merit that cannot be ignored in final orders
Procedural Fairness Trumps Administrative Convenience
- Authorities cannot use procedural delays or technicalities to circumvent substantive rights under the Motor Vehicles Act
- Failure to provide reasons at each stage renders decisions vulnerable to judicial review under Article 14 and 21
- Applications for temporary permits must be treated as quasi-judicial proceedings, not bureaucratic formalities
Judicial Intervention Preserves Access to Livelihood
- The Court’s directive to file a fresh application within a week ensures timely redressal for transport operators dependent on daily income
- This approach prevents indefinite suspension of livelihood rights pending bureaucratic inertia
- Future applicants may cite this judgment to challenge delayed or opaque permit decisions across state transport authorities
