Kerala High Court
Ragesh R.I vs The Secretary on 4 March, 2021
W.P.(C) No.2526/2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1942
WP(C).No.2526 OF 2021(M)
PETITIONER:
RAGESH R.I.
S/O.RAJENDRAN, CHEPPALLY VEEDU, (ANASWARAM)
MOOLEPEZHU, MOONNUMUKKU P.O., PANGODU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS
RESPONDENT:
THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (RURAL) ATTINGAL - 695 101.
R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.P.HARISH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23-02-2021, THE COURT ON 4-03-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.2526/2021 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the registered owner of the stage carriage bearing No.
KL-9 -P 3277. Stage carriage permit was granted to vehicle No.KL5/S 4282 in
the route Manali - Kallara. The original permit holder of that route was not
operating and hence, the petitioner applied for a temporary permit in that route in
the vacancy of KL5/S 4282. Pursuant to the direction of this court in W.P.(C)
3585/2019, the petitioner was issued temporary permit for 20 days duration. The
petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) 30282/2019 in which, by
Ext.P1 judgment ,this court directed the respondent to grant temporary permit for
four months duration or till the original incumbent returns, whichever was earlier.
Accordingly, Ext.P2 temporary permit was issued. Thereafter, Ext.P3 application
was filed for grant of the temporary permit in relation to the same route in relation
to a vehicle, details of which were not disclosed. It appears from Ext.P3 that,
since the vehicle KL 09.P. 3777 required major repairs, temporary permit was
sought for another suitable vehicle. Grievance of the petitioner is that, though
Ext.P3 application is pending since 27/1/2021, no orders has been passed.
2. Learned senior Government pleader vehemently opposed the above
application. According to the statement filed by the respondent, which was
heavily relied on by the government pleader, permit of the above vehicle was
surrendered by the original permit holder during period 4/1/2019. Thereafter, the
timings were allotted to other senior operators on the sector. It was contended
that, strong objections filed against this stage carriage are still prevailing and
granting of such a permit may lead to unhealthy practices and time clash. It
was also contended that the temporary application sought by the petitioner is
not maintainable as the same is not in existence. It was also stated that, in the
application vehicle number was not disclosed and hence the fee could not be
accepted. Hence the application cannot be processed. Relying on the decision
reported in Sijo Paul and Another v.Secretary, Regional Transport Authority
( 2019 (4) KHC 385), it was contended that the temporary permit can be granted
only for meeting a particular temporary need. It seems that the original permit
holder surrendered the route. Relying on the decisions reported in Madhya
Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Balragarh, Bhopal(M.P) v.
B.P.Upadhyaya, Regional Transport Authority, Raipur and others (AIR 1966
SC 156), which was followed by this court in M.V.Joseph v. Senapathi &
Others 970 KLT 1102 ,it was contended that temporary need can arise due to
the non operation of the regular service. In the statement, the Secretary RTA
has taken up definite stand that the timing was allotted to the senior operator.
The date on which such an allotment was made and the vehicle in whose favour
that was allotted are not discernible from the statement. It is also pertinent to
note that, the contention that there is no temporary need, does not appear to be
sustainable for the reason that Ext.P1 order and P3 permit indicate that due to
the surrender of the permit by the original permit holder, a temporary need arose
and temporary permit was in fact issued to the petitioner. Evidently, allotment of
the above timing to another senior operator, could have arisen only after expiry
of Ext.P2 permit. In the absence of any material to substantiate that the route
was allotted to senior operator, I am inclined to hold that the authority was under
an obligation to pass appropriate order on Ext.P3.
Having considered this, I am inclined to direct that the petitioner shall
cure the defects in the application, as expeditiously as possible, within a week
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On production of a copy of
this judgment, the competent authority shall pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3,
as expeditiously as possible, at any rate with a period of four weeks, in
accordance with law, based on the materials gathered by the authority.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS
dpk JUDGE
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.30282 OF
2019 DATED 16/11/2019 RENDERED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT DATED
30/11/2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
27/01/2021 ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER.
