Seema C.M vs Regional Transport Authority, ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 20941 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
    WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 14TH ASWINA, 1943
                       WP(C) NO. 20343 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

          SEEMA C.M
          AGED 35 YEARS
          W/O. RAJEEV K.V., SOUPARNIKA NIVAS, MOWANCHERY,
          CHELORA, KANNUR.

          BY ADV I.DINESH MENON



RESPONDENTS:

    1     REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KANNUR
          KANNUR, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, CIVIL STATION P.O.,
          KANNUR-670001.

    2     THE SECRETARY,
          REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KANNUR, REGIONAL
          TRANSPORT OFFICE, CIVIL STATION P.O., KANNUR-670001.

    3     THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
          KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CHIEF OFFICE,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695034.

          BY ADV P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)




          SMT . K AMMINIKUTTY - SR GP




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 20343 OF 2021
                                    2



                               JUDGMENT

The petitioner impugns Ext.P2 decision of the 1st respondent

- Regional Transport Authority (RTA), rejecting his application

for renewal of permit on the ground that the route exceeds 140

kms. The petitioner says that the reasons recorded in Ext.P2 are

incorrect, since he had specifically informed the RTA that he is

confining his route to 140 kms. and below. He says that even

though KSRTC will not have any objection if the route is so

limited, the RTA has rejected his request through Ext.P2, without

considering the germane aspects in its true perspective.

2. Sri.I.Dinesh Menon - learned counsel for the

petitioner, supplemented the afore submissions by saying that his

client has also preferred Ext.P5 application for variation of

conditions of permit, curtailing the portion of the route to bring it

within 140 kms. in the Aralam-Kozhikode stretch; and prayed that

this be directed to be considered by the RTA, after this Court sets

aside Ext.P2.

WP(C) NO. 20343 OF 2021

3. Sri.P.C.Chacko - learned Standing for the KSRTC,

submitted that, as is evident from Ext.P2, the petitioner did not

provide a demarcated length of route and therefore, that the RTA

was justified and saying that no such service can be permitted for

more than 140 kms. as per the restrictions in Rule 2[(Oa)] of the

Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. He submitted that, however, if

the petitioner is confining the route to less than 140 kms., the

matter can be directed to reconsider by the RTA; praying that his

client be also given an opportunity of being heard.

4. Smt.K.Amminikkutty - learned Senior Government

Pleader, affirmed that Ext.P2 decision has already been taken by

the RTA and added that it cannot be challenged by the petitioner

because it has already been recorded therein that the petitioner did

not even provide a proper route for the consideration of the said

Authority.

5. When I evaluate the afore submissions, there can be no

doubt that if the petitioner confines his route less than 140 kms,

then the inhibition under Rule [(2Oa)] of the Kerala Motor WP(C) NO. 20343 OF 2021

Vehicles Rules, read with the applicable notification, would not

stand in the way of the petitioner seeking variation of his permit.

In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and set

aside Ext.P2; with a consequential direction to the 1st respondent

- RTA, to take up Ext.P5 application of the petitioner and

consider the same, after affording an opportunity of being heard

to him, as also the official concerned to the KSRTC; thus

concluding it through a proper order, after verifying that the route

proposed by the petitioner falls below 140 kms.

The afore exercise shall be completed by the 1st respondent

as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from

the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE SAS/06/10/2021 WP(C) NO. 20343 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20343/2021

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT DATED 12.8.2010.

Exhibit P2 TRUE EXTRACT OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN ITEM NO.158.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.1098/2018 DATED

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE GO (MS) NO.22/2020/TRANS DATED 1.7.2020.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION DATED 16.7.2021.

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.14623/2021 DATED 16.9.2021.