Kerala High Court
Sabu Varghese vs Sudha Sasikumar on 4 August, 2025
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
2025:KER:59388
WA No.1868 of 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1947
WA NO. 1868 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.07.2025 IN WP(C) NO.19863 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS 3 AND 5 IN WP(C):
1 SABU VARGHESE
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O.VARGHESE, CHERAVATTOM HOUSE, MANGADU P.O, PAZHANJI,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680542
2 NISHAD K.K.,
S/O KASIM, KODAMANATH HOUSE, AYYAPPESAN PADY, PAINKULAN
P.O, THRISSUR, PIN - 679531
BY ADV SHRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1,2,4 AND 6 IN WP(C):
1 SUDHA SASIKUMAR,
AGED 55 YEARS
W/O SASIKUMAR, BALAKRISHNA MOTORS, GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680101
2 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REGIONAL
TRANSPORT OFFICE, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
3 THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD, REGIONAL
TRANSPORT OFFICE, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
4 P.V.RAMAKRISHNAN,
S/O.VELAYUDHAN, PADIYANKATTIL HOUSE, KUNDANNOOR P.O.,
KUMBALANGAD, VADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR, PIN - 680590
5 C.A.ABRAHAM,
AGED 71 YEARS S/O.ABRAHAM, 612, MAYOORAM, MAYILVAHANAM,
SHORNUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679121
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI P DEEPAK SR
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD ON 04.08.2025, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:59388
WA No.1868 of 2025
2
JUDGMENT
Amit Rawal, J.
The present intra court appeal is directed against the judgment of the Single Bench whereby the writ petition with the following prayers preferred by the first respondent has been allowed.
I. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or such other writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P13 and quash the same. II. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to reconsider the application for renewal of Ext.P2 permit submitted by the petitioner on 17.6.2011 on the original route Guruvayoor-Palakkad and grant renewal of the said permit on the curtailed route Palakkad- Pattambi in exercise of power conferred under Section 103(2) of the Act.
2. Succinctly, the facts in brief are that respondent- writ petitioner had submitted an application to the RTA Palakkad for issuance of a valid permit of the vehicle bearing No. KL-8-AJ-9550 on 19.6.2006 from Palakkad to Gurvayoor via Pattambi. The Secretary RTA vide communication dated 20.6.2006 granted the permit with a time table to ply the 2025:KER:59388 WA No.1868 of 2025 3 vehicle from Palakkad to Guruvayur via Pattambi effective from 20.6.2006 to 19.6.2011 with an indication that the application for renewal of the permit should be submitted 15 days prior to the expiry of the permit. The aforementioned permit also envisages the writ petitioner-respondent to obtain the counter signature of the sister RTA, Thrissur for operating the route from last district point of Palakkad entering to the Guruvayur falling in Thrissur district.
3. The sister RTA refused to counter sign which was assailed by the respondent-writ petitioner before this Court in WP(C) No.31309 of 2006. The learned Single Bench vide judgment dated 27.11.2006 rejected the aforementioned claim led to institution of Writ Appeal No.712 of 2007.
4. The writ appeal was dismissed noticing certain facts that originally the respondent-writ petitioner had a permit for a particular period and his application for renewal was rejected and therefore was constrained to move a fresh application which was granted vide order Ext.P1.
5. It is pertinent to mention here that the respondent-writ petitioner during all these period plied his 2025:KER:59388 WA No.1868 of 2025 4 vehicle between Palakkad and Pattambi and there was no penal or adverse action was taken by any competent authority under the law. On expiry of the validity of the permit in 2011, the writ petitioner submitted an application for its renewal for the route Palakkad to Guruvayur, in the same manner as it was originally issued, with a clarification that the vehicle had actually operated only on the Palakkad to Pattambi route. The said application was rejected by the RTA vide order dated 29.7.2011 which was assailed before the State Appellate Tribunal vide Appeal bearing M.V.A.A No.315 of 2011.
6. Vide judgment dated 24.7.2014, State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 29.7.2011 of the RTA, Palakkad and remitted the matter to reconsider the application submitted for renewal of permit by the petitioner or for temporary permit on the route 'Palakkad-Pattambi' after affording an opportunity of being heard to the writ petitioner as well as to the KSRTC. During the interregnum, i.e., in the same year, the Government had promulgated a National Scheme, under 2025:KER:59388 WA No.1868 of 2025 5 which the route from Ottappalam to Guruvayur was declared as a notified route. Meaning thereby, only the State Transport vehicle would ply on that route.
7. The aforementioned order of the Tribunal was not assailed by any of the parties to the lis as well as by the appellant who came into picture at a much later stage, which will be referring to the later part of our observations.
8. It is pertinent to mention here that along with order Ext.P4, the Regional Transport Authority passed a fresh order dated 24.10.2014 in compliance of the directions of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal permitting the writ petitioner to submit an application in the route Palakkad- Pattambi in the open forum of the next RTA.
9. Accordingly, the petitioner vide Ext.P6 submitted an application for the aforementioned route ie., Palakkad- Pattambi on 1.6.2015. Since this application was pending consideration was impelled to approach this Court for issuance of appropriate directions vide W.P.(C) No.33910 of 2014. This Court vide order dated 29.9.2015 disposed of the writ petition in the following manner:
The petitioner has reportedly filed an application dated 2025:KER:59388 WA No.1868 of 2025 6 2.6.2015 for renewal of permit on the modified curtailed route (Palakkad-Pattambi). The petitioner asserts that the same is in consonance with Ext.P6 decision of the first respondent and Ext.P1 judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. 2. I direct the first respondent to consider the application afore stated dated 2.6.2015 treating the same as one for renewal of the existing permit on the modified route. The same shall be done with notice to the petitioner and the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. Every endeavour shall be made to take a decision thereon in the next meeting convened by the first respondent. The Writ Petition is disposed of.
10. Since the aforementioned directions were not complied with, the petitioner was impelled to approach this Court once again by filing W.P.(C) No. 28037 of 2019 and this Court vide judgment dated 25.10.2019 directed the authority to decide the application for renewal within a period of six weeks after notice of petitioner and all affected persons. The order dated 25.10.2019 reads thus:
The petitioner has approached the 1 st respondent by Ext.P6 representation for renewal of permit on the modified curtailed route Pattambi-Palakkad in the light of Ext.P2 judgment. The application for renewal is pending.
2. In the light of above, there shall be a direction to 1st respondent to take a decision on the application for renewal within a period of six weeks after notice of petitioner and all affected persons.
11. The matter was taken up by the Regional 2025:KER:59388 WA No.1868 of 2025 7 Transport Authority in the proceedings held on 31.01.2020, and the application was rejected on the ground that there was no valid permit, as the petitioner had not availed the opportunity to seek curtailment or modification under sub-section (1) of Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The aforementioned order was assailed by the respondent-writ petitioner before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal vide Appeal No.39 of 2020.
12. The State Appellate Tribunal vide judgment dated 5.6.2020 allowed the appeal, set aside the order and directed the RTA to reconsider the application for renewal submitted by the petitioner on the modified curtailed route Palakkad to Pattambi on merits and pass order in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
13. It is pertinent to mention here that at the stage of the appellate Tribunal, Sabu Varghese and C.C Abraham were impleaded as additional respondents 3 and 4. The order of the Appellate Tribunal was assailed by the newly impleaded respondents before the STAT/ the appellants 2025:KER:59388 WA No.1868 of 2025 8 herein vide WP(C) No.14847 and 15810 of 2020. The learned Single Bench of this Court, by judgment dated 04.01.2021, dismissed the writ petitions on the ground that the impugned order of the RTA, Palakkad, merely directed reconsideration of the application for renewal of the permit on the modified route, on its merits.
14. The aforementioned judgment was assailed before the Division Bench of this Court vide intra court appeal bearing No.146 of 2021. This Court vide judgment dated 5.9.2024 disposed of the writ appeal by observing that the question of maintainability of the application submitted for modified route was permitted to be raised before the Regional Transport Authority.
15. Regional Transport authority vide order dated 11.3.2025 dismissed the application of the petitioner in the following manner:
For varying the conditions of a stage carriage permit( including curtailment of route) under Section 80(3) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it is mandatory to file application in the form "PVA" as stipulated in Rule 179 of Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 by remitting requisite application fee prescribed in Rule 164 of KMV Rules, 1989. In this case, the permit holder never filed such an application for variation of permit. Only if the variation of permit is allowed, permit holder will be permit ( on 2025:KER:59388 WA No.1868 of 2025 9 modified/varied/curtailed route) under Section 81(2) of Motor Vehicles entitled to apply for renewal of the Act, 1988 in the form "PRA" as stipulated in Rule 172(2) of Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 by remitting requisite application fee prescribed in Rule 164 of KMV Rules, 1989. In short, the permit holder neither filed application for variation of permit as above/obtained varied permit, nor applied in form PRA as above for renewal of permit on the modified curtailed route). A mere request submitted on 02.06.2015 by the permit holder which requests this authority to consider his earlier application for renewal of permit (submitted 17.06.2011) on the route Guruvayur-Palakkad as the one for the modified route Palakkad-Pattambi, will not suffice the procedural formalities stipulated in Motor Vehicles Act and Rules framed there under.
Moreover, there was no vehicle attached to this permit since 12.10.2012 to till date, ie., for the long 12 years, and in this duration, the ownership and possession of the vehicle KL 08 AJ 9550 is seen transferred and vehicle was operated by attaching to another permit on a different route by an another person. Though now the possession of the vehicle is taken back by reverse transfer of ownership wef. 19.12.2019, it is still not attached to the above permit. Hence, as per the dictum laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the judgment dated 06.04.2016 in WA No. 2486, 2455 & 2769 of 2015, no permit can exist in vacuum without a vehicle attached to it. Hence, in exercise of the powers conferred upon under Section 86(1) of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 read with Rule 185 of Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, this authority hereby cancel the regular stage carriage permit C6/10/2006/P. The permit holder shall surrender the original permit before the Secretary, RTA who is directed to record in the permit the order of cancellation. Hence, for the above reasons, and in the absence of any formal application for renewal of permit on the modified route, the request dated 02.06.2015 is found not maintainable and hence rejected.
16. The pith and substance of the reasoning 2025:KER:59388 WA No.1868 of 2025 10 extracted above, reveals that since the petitioner did not seek the modification of the original permit issued in 2006 and had plied the vehicle on a different route, directed the authority to cancel the regular stage carriage permit bearing No.C6/10/2006/P with a direction to the permit holder to surrender the original permit before the Secretary, RTA with a further direction to the RTA to cancel the permit and rejected the application for renewal of permit on the modified route. The aforementioned order gave a cause of action to the respondent-writ petitioner to assail before this Court in WP(C) No.19863 of 2025. In the pending writ petition, the appellants, who were impleaded as additional respondents before the STAT, filed a counter affidavit reiterating the decisions of the RTA. However, they failed to disclose how they were affected and intentionally withheld the vehicle number and other relevant details.
17. Learned Single Bench on ponderance of Section 103, 72 of the Motor Vehicles Act found that once there was a direction by the STAT to treat the fresh application for renewal on the modified route from Palakkad to Pattambi 2025:KER:59388 WA No.1868 of 2025 11 had not been assailed by any of the authorities much less the subsequent order of the RTA dated 24.10.2014 to submit a fresh application, in the absence of any action taken by the KSRTC or by the State against the respondent-petitioner, allowed the writ petition.
18. Mr. K.V Gopinathan Nair, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in support of the memorandum of intra court appeal has raised the following submissions:
i. In the absence of counter signature by the Sister RTA, Thrissur District for plying the vehicle on the route Palakkad to Guruvayur, the permit bearing No.C6/10/2006/P was an invalid permit and therefore the respondent could not have plied the vehicle on a shorter route ie., from Palakkad to Pattambi and even did not apply to the last destination ie., Ottappilavu falling in the district Palakkad. ii. No application under sub-section (3) of Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act was submitted, therefore, the entire period during which the vehicle was plied, was based on an invalid permit. Even if the authorities failed to take action, 2025:KER:59388 WA No.1868 of 2025 12 the provisions of the law cannot be violated with impunity. iii. No cause of action accrued in favour of the writ petitioner to apply for a renewal of the application in 2011 in view of the fact that the permit Ext.P1 was invalid. iv. The timetable of the stage carriage, as prescribed in the invalid permit marked as Ext.P1, was for the route from Palakkad to Guruvayur. In the absence of a counter-signature and in light of the promulgation of the National Scheme, under which the route to Guruvayur, falling within the Thrissur district, was declared as a notified route, the writ petitioner ought to have submitted an application for variation of the permit to ply the vehicle on the modified route from Palakkad to Ottappilavu.
v. Since the appellants were permitted to implead at the stage of RTA on the basis of the order of the STAT dated 24.7.2014, the liberty granted by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 5.9.2024 in W.A No.146 of 2021, the objection with regard to the non assailment of the order dated 24.7.2014 as well as 24.10.2014 would pale into insignificance.
2025:KER:59388 WA No.1868 of 2025 13 vi. If at all the petitioner was aggrieved, they could have submitted a fresh application for a route from Palakkad to Pattambi, but not an application for renewal.
19. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the order of the Single Bench is based upon the appreciation of the provisions of the Section 103 of the Motor Vehicles Act as the provisions of the aforementioned Act would come into play immediately on promulgation of the scheme by the Government. Since the route to Guruvayur, falling within a different district, had been notified, it was incumbent upon the concerned Regional Transport Authority to pass an order under clause (iii) of sub- section (2) of Section 103 of the Act, precisely which has been noticed by the learned Single Bench. There are no deterrent or consequential provisions under the Act in cases where a permit holder plies the vehicle on a shorter route than the one granted, as the petitioner had never operated the vehicle beyond the Palakkad district. The appellants have failed to disclose their bonafides by giving the particulars of the permit as to how and in what manner affected and locus 2025:KER:59388 WA No.1868 of 2025 14 standi to assail the orders of the authority as well as an application for renewal of the permit on the modified route and urges this court for dismissal of the writ appeal.
20. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book and of the view that there is no merit and substance in the submissions.
21. Section 80 of the Act is worth extraction:-
80. Procedure in applying for and granting permits. -
(1) An application for a permit of any kind may be made at any time.
(2)A [Regional Transport Authority, State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority referred to in sub-
section (1) of section 66] shall not ordinarily refuse to grant an application for permit of any kind made at any time under this Act:Provided that the [Regional Transport Authority, State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority referred to in sub-section (1) of section 66] may summarily refuse the application if the grant of any permit in accordance with the application would have the effect of increasing the number of stage carriages as fixed and specified in a notification in the Official Gazette under clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 71 or of contract carriages as fixed and specified in a notification in the Official Gazette under clause (a) of sub-section of section 74:Provided further that where a [Regional Transport Authority, State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority referred to in sub- section (1) of section 66] refuses an application for the grant of a permit of any kind under this Act, it shall give to the applicant in writing its reasons for the refusal of the same and an opportunity of being heard in the matter.
(3)An application to vary the conditions of any permit, other than a temporary permit, by the inclusion of a new route or routes or a new area or by altering the route or 2025:KER:59388 WA No.1868 of 2025 15 routes or area covered by it, or in the case of a stage carriage permit by increasing the number of trips above the specified maximum or by the variation, extension or curtailment of the route or routes or the area specified in the permit shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit:Provided that it shall not be necessary so to treat an application made by the holder of stage carriage permit who provides the only service on any route to increase the frequency of the service so provided without any increase in the number of vehicles:Provided further that,(i)in the case of variation, the termini shall not be altered and the distance covered by the variation shall not exceed twenty-four kilometres;
(ii)in the case of extension, the distance covered by extension shall not exceed twenty-four kilometres from the termini,and any such variation or extension within such limits shall be made only after the transport authority is satisfied that such variation will serve the convenience of the public and that it is not expedient to grant a separate permit in respect of the original route as so varied or extended or any part thereof. (4)A [Regional Transport Authority, State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority referred to in sub- section (1) of section 66] may, before such date as may be specified by it in this behalf, replace any permit granted by it before the said date by a fresh permit conforming to the provisions of section 72 or section 74 or section 76 or section 79, as the case may be, and the fresh permit shall be valid for the same route or routes or the same area for which the replaced permit was valid:Provided that no condition other than a condition which was already attached to the replaced permit or which could have been attached thereto under the law in force when that permit was granted shall be attached to the fresh permit except with the consent in writing of the holder of the permit.
(5)Notwithstanding anything contained in section 81, a permit issued under the provisions of sub-section (4) shall be effective without renewal for the remainder of the period during which the replaced permit would have been so effective.
22. No doubt, sub-section (3) of Section 80 2025:KER:59388 WA No.1868 of 2025 16 empowers a permit holder to seek variation of the permit under the circumstances prescribed therein. However, neither the Act nor the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 envisage any deterrent or consequential action against a permit holder for plying the vehicle on a shorter route. There could be circumstances where a permit holder exceeds the route prescribed in the permit. The case in hand is of such a nature where a permit holder had even not plied the vehicle to the last destination point in Palakkad district but a shorter distance ie., Palakkad to Pattambi which is shorter by 14 km to Ottappilavu.
23. It is a matter of record that the route from the last destination point to Guruvayur was declared as a notified route. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, the permit issued in Ext.P1, granting the permission to the respondent- writ petitioner to operate on the Palakkad-Pattambi route, could not have been permitted to remain in force. It was, rather, incumbent upon the authorities to act in accordance with the provisions of clause (iii) of sub-section (2) of Section 103 of the Motor Vehicles Act, as has already been noted by 2025:KER:59388 WA No.1868 of 2025 17 the learned Single Bench in the impugned order. However for the sake of understanding, we extract the same.
103. Issue of permits to State transport undertakings. - (1) Where, in pursuance of an approved scheme, any State transport undertaking applies in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government in this behalf for a stage carriage permit or a goods carriage permit or a contract carriage permit in respect of a notified area or notified route, the State Transport Authority in any case where the said area or route lies in more than one region and the Regional Transport Authority in any other case shall issue such permit to the State transport undertaking, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Chapter V. (2)For the purpose of giving effect to the approved scheme in respect of a notified area or notified route, the State Transport Authority or, as the case may be, the Regional Transport Authority concerned may, by order,
(a)refuse to entertain any application for the grant or renewal of any other permit or reject any such application as may be pending;(b)cancel any existing permit;(c)modify the terms of any existing permit so as to(i)render the permit ineffective beyond a specified date;
(ii)reduce the number of vehicles authorised to be used under the permit;(iii)curtail the area or route covered by the permit in so far as such permit relates to the notified area or notified route.(3)For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that no appeal shall lie against any action taken, or order passed, by the State Transport Authority or any Regional Transport Authority under sub- section (1) or sub-section (2).
24. Sub clause (iii) of sub Section 2 of Section 103 empowers the competent authority to curtail the area and route covered by the permit once the permit relates to the notified area or notified route.
2025:KER:59388 WA No.1868 of 2025 18
25. On perusal of the order dated 24.07.2014, makes it evident that permission was granted to the writ petitioner to submit an application for the route Palakkad- Pattambi, for the reason that the route up to Guruvayur had been declared as a notified route. The order aforementioned was not challenged. Even though this Court vide judgment in W.A No.146 of 2021 dated 5.9.2024 had given liberty to the maintainability of the application made by the writ petitioner for renewal of permit on the modified route to be raised by all the parties before the Regional Transport Authority, that would not take away the statutory duty of the Regional Transport Authority to act under Section 103 of the Act.
26. The argument that the provisions of Section 103 of the Act could not have been taken in the absence of compliance of the provisions of Rule 242 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rule. The same reads thus:
242. Cancellation of existing permits.‐
(a) The State or Regional Transport Authority concerned shall, before making an order either cancelling any existing permit under clause (b) or modifying the terms of any existing permit under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 103 of the Act, for the purpose of giving effect to 2025:KER:59388 WA No.1868 of 2025 19 an approved scheme, issue notice in Form 'C' informing the affected operators, of the action proposed to be taken and giving them time of not less than thirty days to make representations against the proposed action.
27. The aforementioned Rules prescribes that a procedure has to be followed by the competent authority and the steps has to be taken in terms of the provisions of Section103 of the Act and nothing beyond.
28. Section 103 of the Act falls under Chapter VI whereas Section 80 falls under Chapter V. The provisions of Section 98 was also referred to during the course of the hearing that the provisions of Section 103 would override the provisions of Section 80 which falls under Chapter 5. Thus there was no occasion for the respondent-writ petitioner to submit an application under sub Section 3 of Section 80 in view of the over riding provisions under Section 98 of the Act. We are unable to fathom that how the authorities have failed to adhere to the orders of the STAT as well as of this Court from time to time as referred to above by rejecting the application for renewal of the permit without noticing or even referring to the provisions of Section 103 of the Act. It was incumbent upon the authorities to apply the aforementioned 2025:KER:59388 WA No.1868 of 2025 20 provisions, rather than reject the application for renewal on the ground that the permit, Ext.P1, had become invalid due to the declaration of the notified route up to Guruvayur. All these factors have been consciously considered by the learned Single Bench while allowing the writ petition. We do not find any illegality and perversity in the impugned order. The writ appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
SD/-
AMIT RAWAL JUDGE SD/-
sab P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
JUDGE
2025:KER:59388
WA No.1868 of 2025
21
APPENDIX OF WA 1868/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure-A1 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT
FILED BY THE 1 ST APPELLANT, WHO WAS
THE ADDL. 3RD RESPONDENT IN MVAA NO.39
OF 2020
Annexure-A2 A ROUGH SKETCH SHARING THE DETAILS OF
THE ROUTE