IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 14TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.14847 OF 2020(E)
PETITIONERS:
1 SABU VARGHESE
S/O VARGHESE,
CHERAVATTOM HOUSE, MANGADU.P.O., PAZHANJI,
THRISSUR.
2 P.V.RAMAKRISHNAN,
S/O.VELAYUDHAN, PADIYANKATTIL HOUSE,
KUNDANNOOR.P.O., KUMBALANGAD, VADAKKANCHERRY.
BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
KENATHUPARAMBU, KUNNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD-678001.
2 THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KENATHUPARAMBU,
KUNNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD-678001.
3 SUDHA SASIKUMAR,
W/O.SASIKUMAR, BALAKRISHNA MOTORS,
GURUVAYOOR-680101.
R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK
BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.MABLE C. KURIAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
22-12-2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).15810/2020(A), THE COURT ON
04-01-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 14TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.15810 OF 2020(A)
PETITIONER:
C.A.ABRAHAM
AGED 71 YEARS
S/O.ABRAHAM,612,MAYOORAM,MAYILVAHANAM,SHORNUR,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT,PIN-679121.
BY ADV. SRI.M.JITHESH MENON
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
PALAKKAD,PIN-678001.
2 SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
PALAKKAD,PIN-678001.
3 SUDHA SASIKUMAR,
W/O.SASIKUMAR,BALAKRISHNA MOTORS,
GURUVAYOOR,PIN-680101.
BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.MABLE C. KURIAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
22-12-2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).14847/2020(E), THE COURT ON
04-01-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
SATHISH NINAN, J.
==================
W.P.(C) Nos.14847 & 15810 of 2020
==================
Dated this the 4th day of January, 2021
JUDGMENT
On 20.06.2006, the third respondent in these writ petitions was issued with a regular permit for the inter-district route Palakkad- Guruvayoor, subject to the obtaining of counter signature from the RTA, Thrissur. Since there was overlapping with the notified route, the RTA, Thrissur, refused counter signature. According to the third respondent, consequent to the refusal, the stage carriage operated between Palakkad and Pattambi.
2. On the expiry of the permit, which was valid from 20.06.2006 to 19.06.2011, the third respondent submitted an application seeking renewal of the same. The RTA, Thrissur, rejected the application for the reason of refusal of counter signature by the RTA, Thrissur. Thereupon, the third respondent approached the STAT by filing M.V.A.A. 315/2011. The same was disposed of by the W.P.(C) Nos.14847 & 15810 of 2020 -: 2 :- STAT as per judgment dated 24.07.2014 directing the renewal application to be considered for the route Palakkad-Pattambi. Pursuant thereto, the RTA Palakkad directed the third respondent to submit an application for renewal of the permit in the route Palakkad-Pattambi. Accordingly, the third respondent submitted an application dated 02.06.2015. A writ petition was moved before this Court by the third respondent, as W.P.(c).33910 of 2014, seeking a direction to the RTA to consider the said application. This Court as per judgment dated 29.09.2015 directed consideration of the application. The third respondent was necessitated to move this Court again in W.P(c).28037 of 2019 in which this Court again directed the authority to take a decision on the renewal application. Thereafter the RTA in its meeting held on 24.12.2019, rejected the application.
3. The order of rejection was challenged by the third respondent before the STAT in MVAA 39/2020. The appellate tribunal as per judgment W.P.(C) Nos.14847 & 15810 of 2020 -: 3 :- dated 05.06.2020 set aside the order of the RTA and directed reconsideration of the renewal application, on the modified route Palakkad- Pattambi, on its merits. It is challenging the said judgment that these writ petitions have been filed by rival operators.
4. Heard learned counsel Sri.K.V.Gopinathan Nair and Sri.M.Jithesh Menon on behalf of the petitioners-rival operators, Sri.P.Deepak, the learned counsel for the third respondent-permit holder, and the learned Government Pleader.
5. Drawing my attention to the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the procedural formalities mandated for 'renewal of a permit', and for 'curtailment and renewal of permit' are different. According to the learned counsel, without seeking for curtailment of the route, the third respondent could not have applied for renewal on the 'modified-curtailed route'. The third respondent ought to have moved W.P.(C) Nos.14847 & 15810 of 2020 -: 4 :- the authorities with the necessary application in Form PVA as is prescribed under Rule 179 of the Motor Vehicles Rules and sought for curtailment in terms of Section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The request of the third respondent seeking renewal of permit on the modified curtailed route without having recourse to the said requirements, could not be considered and granted; therefore, the STAT erred in directing consideration of the renewal application on its merits, is the contention.
6. I am in complete accord with the petitioners in their contention that the proper remedy of the third respondent was to seek for curtailment of the route and for renewal on the curtailed-modified route. However, on the facts of the present case, I do not think that the request of the third respondent for renewal on the modified curtailed route is to be rejected solely for the reason of non-compliance with the procedural requirement of submitting an application in terms of Section 83 read with Rule 179. The reasons that prompted me to W.P.(C) Nos.14847 & 15810 of 2020 -: 5 :- take such a view are the following:
(i) The judgment of the STAT dated 24.07.2014 in M.V.A.A. 315/2011, which was filed challenging the original rejection of the renewal application. Therein, the STAT held thus:-
"The matter is remitted to the very same authority, and the Secretary/RTA Palakkad is hereby directed to consider the application submitted for renewal of permit by the petitioner, and also the application for temporary permit filed by him on the route Palakkad-Pattambi after affording an opportunity of being heard to the appellant as well as to the third respondent". That judgment was passed after taking note of the facts involved.
(ii) Pursuant to the judgment in
MVAA.315/2011, the RTA Palakkad, in its
meeting held on 24.10.2014 directed the
Secretary RTA to obtain an application from the third respondent seeking renewal of permit in the route Palakkad-Pattambi. W.P.(C) Nos.14847 & 15810 of 2020 -: 6 :- Pursuant thereto, the third respondent submitted an application dated 02.06.2015 seeking renewal of permit on the modified curtailed route Palakkad-Pattambi.
(iii) The third respondent approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.33910/2014 seeking consideration of his application dated 02.06.2015. As per judgment dated 29.09.2015, this Court directed thus:-
"I direct the first respondent (RTA Palakkad) to consider the application as aforestated dated 02.06.2015 treating the same as one for renewal of the existing permit on the modified route". The modified route mentioned therein was Palakkad-Pattambi.
(iv) A similar direction was issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No.28037/2019 wherein it was directed that a decision be taken on the renewal application within six weeks.
7. It is evident that in the earlier rounds of the proceedings, the STAT, the RTA and this Court had comprehended the situation and was considering W.P.(C) Nos.14847 & 15810 of 2020 -: 7 :- the question of renewal of permit on the curtailed route. Under the circumstances, I do not think it proper or justifiable to reject the application of the third respondent solely on the reason that, the procedural formality of submitting an application for curtailment was not submitted by the third respondent.
8. As per the impugned judgment, the RTA Palakkad has only been directed to re-consider the application for renewal of permit on the modified route Palakkad-Pattambi, on the merits. I do not find any illegality warranting interference in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN JUDGE kns/-
//True Copy// P.S. to Judge APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14847/2020 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 24.12.2019.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN M.V.A.A.NO.39 OF 2020.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 20.06.2006.
EXHIBIT R3(B) TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT VALID TILL 19.06.2011.
EXHIBIT R3(C) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN AIR 1966 SC 455.
EXHIBIT R3(D) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.01.2012 IN MVAA NO.315/2011.
EXHIBIT R3(E) TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT VALID TILL 25.07.2012.
EXHIBIT R3(F) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.07.2014 IN MVAA NO.315/2011.
EXHIBIT R3(G) A TRUE COPY OF THE SAID DECISION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 24.10.2014.
EXHIBIT R3(H) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 01.06.2015. EXHIBIT R3(I) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.09.2015 IN WPC NO.33910/2014.
EXHIBIT R3(J) TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 25.02.2016.
EXHIBIT R3(K) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.10.2019 IN WPC NO.28037/2019.
-----
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15810/2020 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 23.3.2016 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 24.12.2019 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MVA NO.39/2020(WITOUT EXHIBITS) FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 06/02/2020 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN MVAA 39/2020 DATED 5-6-2020 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.
(C)NO.33910/2014 DATED 29/09/2015 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P(C 28037/2019 DATED 25/10/2019.
-----