Kerala High Court
Sheel vs The Regional Transport Authority on 15 March, 2021
W.P.(C) No.5779/2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1942
WP(C).No.5779 OF 2021(V)
PETITIONERS:
SHEEL,
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O.VIJAYAN, THAIVALAPPIL HOUSE, IRINGAL,
AYANIKKAD, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE 673 521
BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
VADAKARA, REP.BY SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT
OFFICE, VADAKARA P.O., VADAKARA 673 101
2 THE SECRETARY
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, VADAKARA, REP.BY
SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, VADAKARA
P.O., VADAKARA 673 101
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP K.P HARISH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.5779/2021 2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 15th day of March 2021
Petitioner herein is the holder of a permit in relation to the vehicle bearing
registration number KL-10 AW 2050, which was taken on lease by the petitioner.
It seems that permit was to expire on 1-4-2021. Petitioner herein seems to have
purchased a vehicle bearing registration number KL-11AV 1132 and applied for
replacement of the vehicle purchased by him with the vehicle which was taken
on lease from one Faisal K. That application was rejected by Ext.P7 order.
Aggrieved by Ext.P7, the petitioner has approached this Court.
2. Learned senior Government Pleader brought to my notice objections
raised by the said Faisal before the Secretary, RTA,which is referred to in Ext.P7.
It was pointed out by the learned senior Government Pleader that. the term of
lease agreement held with Faisal in relation to vehicle No. KL-10 AW 2050 is to
expire on 5/8/2021. While so, the joint application for transfer of permit in favour
of Faisal was filed before the Secretary, RTA. and the matter is still pending
consideration of the RTA. It was in this background, application for replacement
of the vehicle was submitted. It seems that the Secretary RTA heard both sides.
Before the RTA, the registered owner of KL-10 AW 2050 insisted that he will
continue the service up to 5/8/2021, the date of expiry of the lease agreement.
Noting this, the authority dismissed the application for replacement. It seems
that, suppressing this the petitioner has approached this court. No doubt, the
owner of a vehicle, who has leased out his vehicle to a permit holder, cannot
insist that the permit holder should utilise the vehicle till the expiry of the permit
period. If there is a breach of the terms of the lease agreement, the remedy of
the owner of the vehicle lies elsewhere.
3. Having regard to this and also considering the fact that the Secretary,
RTA, is not authorized to dismiss an application for replacement of the vehicle, I
feel that Ext.P7 order is liable to be set aside. However, there is a slight
difference in this case. The objector is not only a mere owner of the vehicle, but
he is a co-applicant in the joint application which gives him higher claim than
being a mere owner of the leased vehicle. The learned counsel for the
respondent vehemently contended that both applications are separate and both
have to be independently considered. Though I agree with that, the decision on
joint application may have a bearing on outcome of replacement application.
Definitely, in the above circumstances, joint application for transfer is to be
considered first and after giving reasonable opportunity to both applicants of
being heard, the appropriate authority shall pass final order after the disposal of
that application. Subject to the outcome of that, application for replacement,
which resulted in Ext.P7, is liable to be considered again with notice to both
sides.
Having considered this, I am inclined to allow the writ petition setting aside
Ext.P7 order. The second respondent-Secretary,RTA, shall consider the
application for transfer on merits with notice to the applicants and after hearing
both sides pass appropriate orders on that application, as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment. Thereafter, the RTA shall consider Ext.P5 application
which resulted in Ext.P7 order afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance
with law. Entire process shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Both sides shall be given an
opportunity to file written objections to the application.
The Registry shall forward a copy of this judgmetn to Faisal, whose
address is shown in Ext.P3, for his information, so that he can also file objection
in advance in writing ,before the authority and follow up the matter.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS
dpk JUDGE
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT ISSUED TO
THE PETITIONER DATED 10.8.2018
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT ISSUED TO
THE PETITIONER DATED 21.8.2020
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT DATED
6.7.2020
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RC BOOK OF THE VEHICLE KL-
58 T 0916
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR
REPLACEMENT DATED 28.1.2021
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COY OF THE HEARING NOTICE DATED
18.2.2021
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED
26.2.2021
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION IN 2008(4) KLT
