Rajendran T.K vs The Regional Transport Authority
2021 Latest Caselaw 18094 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
         FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 12TH BHADRA, 1943
                          WP(C) NO. 17895 OF 2021


PETITIONER:

              RAJENDRAN T.K., S/O KUNHIKANNAN,
              RAJESH TRANSPORTS, THALASSERY ROAD, KANNUR.

              BY ADV I.DINESH MENON


RESPONDENTS:

     1        THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
              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 - 670 001.

     3        THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
              KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
              CHIEF OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 034.

              BY ADV P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)

              SMT RESHMITHA RAMACHANDRAN- GOVERNMENT PLEADER


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WPC 17895/21
                                                2



                                   JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court

seeking a direction to the Regional Transport

Authority (RTA), Kannur, to pass orders on

Exts.P4 and P5 applications for renewal and

variation respectively, on the restricted route

of Parassinikkadavu-Payyannur, which he says is

only 135 kms., in respect of his vehicle bearing

No.SC KL-58 K 1064, in lieu of the basic route of

Parassinikkadavu-Kozhikode-Kanhangad; and to

issue appropriate orders thereon within a time

frame to be fixed by this Court.

2. I have heard Sri.I.Dinesh Menon - learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner;

Smt.Resmitha Ramachandran - learned Government

Pleader, for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned

Standing Counsel - Sri.P.C.Chacko, for the 3rd

respondent - Kerala State Road Transport WPC 17895/21

Corporation (KSRTC).

3. Smt.Resmitha Ramachandran - learned

Government Pleader submitted that, if the

petitioner only requires consideration of his

aforementioned applications, there does not

appear to be any legal impediment for the RTA in

doing so; but prayed that this Court may not make

any affirmative declarations in favour of the

petitioner and leave it to the said respondent to

take an appropriate decision thereon, as per law.

4. Sri.P.C.Chacko, learned Standing Counsel

for the KSRTC, however, submitted that the RTA be

directed to complete the proceedings on the

applications of the petitioner only after

verifying that the route is within 140 kms, as is

required under law. He submitted that, therefore,

if required, the RTA may be directed to hear the

Authorized Official of the KSRTC also.

5. When I consider the afore submissions, it

is without doubt that if the petitioner's WPC 17895/21

applications for renewal and variation of the

permit are still pending before the RTA, then

the same will require to be considered and

disposed of, after hearing him, as also the

Authorized Official of the KSRTC.

In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ

petition and direct the 1st respondent - RTA, to

take up Exts.P4 and P5 applications of the

petitioner and dispose it of, after affording

him, as also the Authorized Official of the

KSRTC, an opportunity of being heard - either

physically or through video conferencing - thus

culminating in an appropriate order thereon, as

expeditiously as is possible, but not later than

two months from the date of receipt of a copy of

this judgment.

Needless to say, if no meeting of the RTA is

held within the above time frame, then the

directions above shall be completed through

circulation.

WPC 17895/21

At this time, Sri.I.Dinesh Menon - learned

counsel for the petitioner, pleaded that the 2nd

respondent - Secretary of RTA, be directed to

consider Ext.P6 application also for temporary

permit. Since I notice that similar directions

have been issued by this Court in analogous

matters, including in Ext.P8 judgment, I deem it

appropriate to accede to this request.

I consequently, direct the 2nd respondent to

take up Ext.P6 and issue appropriate orders

thereon, adverting to my observations and

directions above, within a period of two weeks

from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment.

Sd/-

RR                                               DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
                                                           JUDGE
 WPC 17895/21


               APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17895/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1        TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT DATED
                  12/7/2018.

Exhibit P2        TRUE COPY OF ORDER GO(MS) NO.45/2015
                  DATED 20/8/2015.

Exhibit P3        TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS)

NO.22/2020/TRANS DATED 1/07/2020.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL DATED 20/6/2020.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION DATED 20/6/2020.

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT APPLICATION DATED 20/6/21.

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WP(C) NO.15987/2021 DATED 12/8/2021.

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) N.5204/2021 DATED 23/3/2021.