Kerala High Court
Joseph Varkey vs The Regional Transport Authority on 28 January, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 8TH MAGHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 28151 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
JOSEPH VARKEY
AGED 71 YEARS
S/O. VARKEY, PADIKARA HOUSE, KATTAPPANA SOUTH PO, KATTAPPANA-
685 515
BY ADV I.DINESH MENON
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
IDUKKI, COLLECTORATE P.O.,IDUKKI-PAINAVU-685 693
2 THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, IDUKKI, COLLECTORATE
P.O.,IDUKKI-PAINAVU-685 603
*ADDL. R3 REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM
*[ADDL. RESPONDENT NO.3 IS IMPLEADED IN THIS WRIT PETITION AS
PER ORDERS OF THIS COURT DATED 28.01.2022]
OTHER PRESENT:
SR. Govt. Pleader Sri. BIMAL K. NATH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
SATHISH NINAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C) No.28151 of 2021
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 28th day of January, 2022
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is the holder of a regular permit on
the route Nedumkandam-Kottayam. Since the route length
exceeded 140 kilometres, the petitioner was required to
submit an application for variation to curtail the
route. The petitioner had also submitted an application
for renewal of permit. It is alleging undue delay on the
part of the authorities, that the petitioner has
approached this Court.
2. Heard Sri.I.Dinesh Menon, the learned counsel
for the petitioner and Sri.Bimal K. Nath, learned Senior
Government Pleader.
3. The applications of the petitioner were last
adjourned by first respondent RTA for want of
concurrence from the sister RTA viz. RTA Kottayam.
4. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner
would rely on the judgment of this Court in Thomas K.T.
W.P.(C) No.28151 of 2021
and Anr. v. Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam and anr. [2017 (2)
KLT 611] to contend that concurrence from the sister RTA
is not necessary for renewal of permit, as noticed
earlier, apart from renewal of permit there is yet
another application pending, for curtailment/variation.
It is not in dispute that the curtailment/variation
sought for by the petitioner is within the jurisdiction
of the sister RTA. At any rate while considering the
request for curtailment, inputs/suggestions of the
sister RTA would be relevant. Hence I am unable to
accept the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that concurrence of the sister RTA is not
required in the present case.
5. Learned Senior Government Pleader would submit
that concurrence would be sought for and final orders
passed on the applications without delay. To enable
speedy consideration of the application, this Court has
suo motu impleaded the Regional Transport Authority,
Kottayam as additional third respondent in the writ
W.P.(C) No.28151 of 2021
petition.
Let the needful be done to have concurrence
obtained and final orders passed on the applications as
expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a
period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy
of this judgment. If circumstances warrant, it shall be
open to have the applications considered by circulation
in terms of Rule 130 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
kns/-
//True Copy//
P.S. to Judge
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28151/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT OF PETITIONER
DT 22.7.99
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE GO (MS) NO.22/2020/TRANS
DATED 1.7.2020
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE VARIATION APPLICATION DATED
12.03.2021 FILED BEFORE RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.7030/2021
DATED 8.4.2021
Exhibit P5 TRUE EXTRACT OF THE DECISION IN ITEM NO.46
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION IN 2017 KHC 377
-----
