Kerala High Court
Sabu Varghese vs The Regional Transport Authority on 4 January, 2021
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
-----
