Kerala High Court
G.Venugopalan vs The Regional Transport Authority on 7 April, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
WEDNESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1943
WP(C).No.18803 OF 2020(A)
PETITIONER/S:
G.VENUGOPALAN,
AGED 52 YEARS,
S/O.GOVINDASWAMY,NO.2/85,NORTH
STREET,KODAMBA,PALAKKAD.
BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
PALAKKAD,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,PIN-678001.
2 THE SECRETARY,
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
PALAKKAD,PIN-678001.
3 CHENTHAMARA,
DREAMS, KANIYARPADAM, CHITTOOR.P.O,
PALAKKAD,PIN-678506.
4 VIPIN.K.V,
AGED 39 YEARS,
S/O.VASU, KRISHNA NIVAS, KARINJALIPALLAM, CHITTOOR,
PALAKKAD, PIN-678506.
R4 BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON
SMT SHEEJA C S, SR GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
07.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.18803 OF 2020(A) 2
JUDGMENT
Under challenge in this petition is Ext.P9 order dated 17.3.2020 passed by
the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam in M.V.A.R.P.No. 150 of 2019,
insofar as it directs the 1st respondent to consider the request of the petitioner to
accept the records of the stage carriage bearing Reg. No. KL-09-AR-1661 for
issuing permit afresh and to pass orders. The contention of the petitioner
essentially is that since the records of the vehicle were produced well within time,
there was no need for the 1st respondent to consider the request and the STAT
ought to have directed the Secretary of the RTA to issue the permit after
accepting the records. Seeking corrections, the petitioner had filed M.P.No.405 of
2020 which stands rejected by Ext.P12 order. The said order is also under
challenge in this petition.
2. The records reveal that the petitioner had applied for a regular
permit on the inter district route Palakkad Stadium bus stand - Kuttipalam on
17.11.2016 and offered a stage carriage bearing Reg. No. KL-02-P-3819. The said
application was considered in the meeting held on 28.12.2017 and the same was
rejected on the ground that the vehicle offered was not a suitable one. The said
order was challenged before the STAT and by judgment dated 28.6.2018 in
M.V.A.A.No.161 of 2018, the appeal was allowed and the RTA was directed to
reconsider the application and pass fresh order. The application was reconsidered
in the meeting held on 15.11.2018 and regular permit was granted subject to
production of a suitable stage carriage. The revision petitioner produced a vehicle
bearing No.KL-07-AE-2727 well within time. However, his request for issuance of
permit was not granted on the ground that the vehicle produced was a later
model vehicle. The petitioner then produced a 2012 model vehicle bearing Reg.
No. KL-09-AR-1661 and the 1st respondent in the meeting held on 30.7.2019
rejected the request made by the petitioner for grant of permit. The said order
was challenged before the STAT. The STAT taking note of the pronouncement of
this Court in Shihabudin v. STA [ W.P.(C) No.9 of 2020] came to the conclusion
that the criteria fixed by the STA will not have any legal validity from 29.1.2019 on
which day, Rule 260A of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, stood amended and a
statutory age limit was fixed for the vehicles. Holding so, the 1st respondent was
directed to consider the request of the petitioner to accept the records of the
stage carriage bearing Reg. No. KL-09-AR-1661 for issuing permit afresh.
3. Sri. O.D.Sivadas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
submitted that since the original records of the vehicle were produced in time and
as the substitution of vehicle is a permissible act after grant and before issuance
of permit, the Tribunal ought to have issued directions to the 2nd respondent
instead of the 1st respondent. According to the petitioner, due to the restrictions
imposed due to the pandemic, the likelihood of the timing conference being held
in the near future is remote.
4. The learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted that on
22.6.2020, the petitioner had produced the records of another stage carriage
bearing No.KL-09-P-4206 instead of KL-09-AR-1661 and requested for issuance of
permit. According to the learned government pleader, under Section 72 of the Act,
it is for the RTA to consider the application subject of course to imposition of
appropriate conditions. It is contended that the current records of the stage
carriage No KL-09-AR-1661 was produced only after 4 months and in clear
violation of the provisions of the Rules.
5. Sri Dinesh Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the party
respondents sought to sustain the orders passed by the STAT.
6. I have considered the submissions advanced. The records reveal
that the RTA had considered the application filed by the petitioner on 17.11.2016
for fresh stage carriage permit on the intra district route Palakkad Stadium Bus
Stand - Kuttippalam and in the meeting held on 15.11.2018 permit was granted to
a suitable stage carriage subject to settlement of timings and production of
current records of the vehicle within one month from the date of communication
of the decision. The petitioner states that he produced a suitable vehicle within
the time prescribed but the vehicle was not accepted on the ground that it was
more than 8 years old. Later the insistence to produce a lesser model vehicle was
set aside by this Court. The petitioner produced the records of the vehicle KL-
09AR 1661 only on 24.06.2019 with a request to accept the same. Though his
request for issuance of permit was rejected by the RTA in its meeting held on
30.7.2019, the said order was interfered with by the Tribunal. The RTA was
directed to consider the request of the petitioner to accept the current records of
the stage carriage bearing registration number KL-09AR 1661 for issuing fresh
permit. It appears that the petitioner produced the records of another stage
carriage KL-09-P-4206 on 22.6.2020 with a request to accept the records.
7. The contention of the petitioner appears to be that there was no
reason for the STAT to direct the RTA to consider and grant the permit and the
directions could have been issued to the Secretary, who could have passed the
orders under the delegated powers under Rule 133 of the Rules. I am afraid the
contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. In the instant case, the right to
grant the permit has been exercised by the RTA and not by the delegatee, who is
the Secretary, as per Rule 133(1)(a) of the Rules. There is serious dispute on the
question as to whether the records of the vehicle were produced well within the
period stipulated under rule 159(2) of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules. If that be
the case, the power to grant permit as ordered by the STAT can be taken up only
by the original authority which had granted the permit. This was what prompted
the STAT to issue directions to the RTA to consider the application under Section
72 of the Act and pass orders afresh. I find no reason to interfere with the said
order in the facts and circumstances.
This Writ Petition will stand dismissed.
SD/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
ps
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
17.11.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
FOR REGULAR PERMIT
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED
21.01.2017 ISSUED BY THE RTA,PALAKKAD.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED
28.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE RTA,PALAKKAD.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.O6.2018
IN MVAA NO.161/2018 OF THE
STAT,ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED
15.11.2018 ISSUED BY THE RTA,PALAKKAD.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED
14.6.2017 ISSUED BY THE STA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED
30.07.2019 ISSUED BY THE RTA,PALAKKAD.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 4.4.2011
IN W.P(C)NO.4969 OF 2011 RENDERED BY
THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.03.2020
IN MVARP NO.150/2019 OF THE
STAT,ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED
04.08.2020 IN M.P.NO.405 OF 2020 OF
MVARP NO.150/2019 FILED BY 4TH
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE STAT,ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED
10.08.2020 IN M.P.NO.405 OF 2020 IN
MVARP NO.150/2019 FILED BY PETITIONER
BEFORE THE STAT,ERNAKULAM
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.08.2020
IN M.P.NO.405 OF 2020 OF MVARP
NO.150/2019 OF THE STAT,ERNAKULAM
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER FOR TEMPORARY PERMIT.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATE
17.11.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
FOR REGULAR PERMIT WITH CHELAN
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
17.11.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
FOR TEMPORARY PERMIT WITH CHELAN
EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
28.11.2016 IN WPC 37535 OF 2016 RENDERED
BY THIS HONB'LE COURT
EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE ROUTE ENQUIRY REPORT OF
THE FIELD OFFICER FOR REGULAR PERMIT
EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 4.01.2017
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR HEARING
EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED
24.07.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DECLINING TEMPORARY PERMIT
EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE R.C.BOOK OF STAGE
CARRIAGE BEARING NO KL 9 AE 2727
EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF THE INSURANCE POLICY OF
STAGE CARRIAGE BEARING NO.KL 9 AE 2727.
EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPY OF THE R.C. PARTICULARS OF
STAGE CARRIAGE BEARING NO.KL 9 AE 2727.
EXHIBIT P23 TRUE COPY OF THE R.C. BOOK OF THE
VEHICLE NO.KL 9 AE 2727 STANDS
REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF
SRI.MURALEEDHARAN.
EXHIBIT P24 TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT OF STAGE
CARRIAGE NO.KL 9 AE 2727 ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT TO SRI.MURALEEDHARAN ON
19.03.2019.
EXHIBIT P25 TRUE COPY OF THE R.C. BOOK OF STAGE
CARRIAGE NO.KL 9 AR 1661 ISSUED IN THE
NAME OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P26 TRUE COPY OF THE R.C. BOOK OF STAGE
CARRIAGE NO.KL 9 AR 1661 ISSUED IN THE
NAME OF SRI.SURESH KUMAR ON 01.08.2019.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R4 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FOR CORRECTION
IN M.P.405/2020 IN MVARP NO-159/2019
DATED 7.7.2020
EXHIBIT R4 (b) TRUE COPY OF THE DICTUM IN 2017(3)KLT
//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE
