Jamsheer vs The Regional Transport Authority
2021 Latest Caselaw 3986 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

   WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 14TH MAGHA,1942

                    WP(C).No.10179 OF 2019(V)


PETITIONER/S:

            JAMSHEER
            S/O. IMBICHIMOTHI, 32/2685,
            EDAKKARA POTTAMMAL HOUSE, MUNDIKKAL THAZHAM,
            KOTTAMPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE.

            BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK

RESPONDENT/S:

      1     THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
            MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
            REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, MALAPPURAM 676 505.

      2     THE SECRETARY,
            REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
            MALAPPURAM 676 505.

      3     MUHAMMED IQBAL,
            S/O. BEERANKUTTY, PULIYAMBALAM HOUSE, SUPER BAZAR,
            PERUVALLUR, TIRURANGADI 676306.

      4     THE STATE TRANSPROT APPELLATE
            TRIBUNAL , ERNAKULAM 682 011.

            R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR
            R1, R2 AND R4 SR.GP K.P HARISH

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.10179 OF 2019(V)

                               2




                       JUDGMENT

The petitioner herein challenges Ext.P6 judgment

of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, whereby the

State Transport Appellate Tribunal set aside Ext.P5

order of the Regional Transport Authority rejecting the

application of the third respondent for renewal of

permit and replacement of the old vehicle with a new

vehicle. The regular permit was originally issued to the

third respondent, which was valid till 01.03.2015.

Petitioner sold the vehicle keeping the permit in

suspended animation from 28.09.2013 on wards. The

petitioner thereafter filed the application, which came

up for consideration before the Regional Transport

Authority. The application was dismissed, which was

challenged by the third respondent before the State

Transport Appellate Tribunal. The STribunal by the

impugned order considered the reasons given by the

authority for dismissing the application. It was found WP(C).No.10179 OF 2019(V)

that it was dismissed on three specific grounds. All the

three grounds were found to be factually incorrect by

the Appellate Tribunal. On that premise, the matter was

remanded to the Regional Transport Authority for

reconsideration of the applications for renewal and

replacement, on merits. This has resulted in this Writ

Petition at the instance of the petitioner.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,

the learned senior Government Pleader as well as the

learned counsel for the third respondent.

3. The specific contention of the third

respondent was that the State Transport Appellate

Tribunal has only remanded the matter to the Regional

Transport Authority for a fresh consideration, though

the three factual grounds based on which the order was

passed, were found to be factually incorrect. In the

light of the order of remand, I am not inclined to make

any comments on the above facutal finding of the State

Transport Appellate Tribunal. Suffice to hold that, the WP(C).No.10179 OF 2019(V)

Regional Transport Authority shall consider both the

applications afresh in the light of the settled legal

propositions and after giving a reasonable opportunity

to both sides to advance their contentions. The

Regional Transport Authority shall also refer to R3(a) to

R3(c), and also Ext.P3, which were specifically relied on

by the learned counsel for the respective counsel.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, with a

direction to the Regional Transport Authority to take up,

consider and pass appropriate orders on the

applications for renewal and replacement, as

expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of

six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment.

Writ Petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE R.AV WP(C).No.10179 OF 2019(V)

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED TO KL-58-D-4334 VALID TILL 31.10.2022.

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.8.2013 IN WPC NO. 21306 OF 2013.

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.10.2015 IN WA NO. 2175 OF 2015 REPORTED IN 2015 SCC ONLINE KER 31828.

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.6.2018 IN WPC NO. 19715 OF 2018

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 25.9.2018 IN ITEM NO. 79.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.1.2019 IN MVAA NO. 344/2018.

EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE QUERY DATED 20.6.2018 AND THE REPLY GIVEN ON 23.7.2018.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXT.RE(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXT.R3(B) A TRUE CUPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY 3RD RESPONDENT SEEKING RENEWAL OF PERMIT

EXT.R3(C) A TRUE COPY OFTHE REPLACEMENT APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY 3RD RESPONDENT.