Aboobacker K.A vs Joint Regional Transport Officer
2022 Latest Caselaw 5832 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
         TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2022 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1944
                        WP(C) NO. 13238 OF 2022
PETITIONERS:

     1       ABOOBACKER K.A.,
             KAROTHUKUDI, MUDICKAL P.O., PERUMBAVOOR,
             MOLUDUPURA, ERNAKULAM-683 547.

     2       ASAD.E.M.,
             ELAVUMKUDY HOUSE, MARAMPILLY P.O.,
             PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN-683 105.

     3       RAJESH.P.R.,
             PEEDIKAKKUDIYIL, KEEZHILLAM P.O.,
             PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN-683 541.

     4       VARGHESE P.A. @ ANTONY VARGHESE,
             POTHEN HOUSE, OKKAL P.O.,
             PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM-683 550.

     5       SIDHIKK,
             THEKEVADAYATH, PONASSERY P.O.,
             PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM-683 547.

     6       NAJEEB.V.S.,
             VELLAKUDI, ALLAPFA P.O.,
             PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM-683 536.

     7       GINU @ THOMAS,
             MELETHADAM, PEERUMBAVOOR P.O.,
             PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM-683 542.

     8       RAHEEM,
             KIDANGASSERY HOUSE, VAZHAKKULAM P.O.,
             PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM-683 105.

     9       SHAMEER ROSHAN,
             KALLINGAL HOUSE, MUDICKAL P.O.,
             PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM-683 547.
 WP(C) NO. 13238 OF 2022
                              2

   10     MANAF.T.S.,
          THURUTHUMMEL HOUSE, PERUMBAVOOR P.O.,
          PARAPPURAM, ERNAKULAM-683 547.

   11     ABDUL KAREEM.P.S.,
          PUTHENVEETTIL HOUSE, MUDICKAL P.O.,
          PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM-683 547.

   12     MAHINKUTTY,
          VATTATHARA HOUSE, MARAMPILLY P.O.,
          PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN-683 105.

   13     K.M.UMMER,
          KOTTAPURATH HOUSE, SREEMOOLANAGARAM P.O.,
          ALUVA, ERNAKULAM-683 105.

   14     NAJEEB.M.A.,
          PANDIYAMOODU HOUSE, PERUMBAVOOR P.O.,
          PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM-683 542.

   15     NASEEMA.K.A.,
          ALANGAYI HOUSE, ALLAPRA P.O.,
          PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM-683 556.

   16     DILSHAD ABDUL MAJEED,
          CHEELAKKATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PONJASSERY P.O.,
          PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM-683 547.

   17     LATHEEF,
          CHERUVALLIKUDY HOUSE, RAYONPURAM P.O.,
          PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN-683 543.

   18     SUBAIR.M.A.,
          MUNDACKAL HOUSE, MUDICKAL P.O.,
          PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM-683 547.

          BY ADVS.
          P.M.SANEER
          P.A.SHAJI SAMAD
 WP(C) NO. 13238 OF 2022
                                   3

RESPONDENTS:

     1       JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
             OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
             IRONGOLE P.O., PERUMBAVOOR,
             ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 548.

     2       STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
             PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION, PERUMBAVOOR-683 542.


             SR GP SRI SUNIL V K


      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   31.05.2022,   THE   COURT   ON    THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 13238 OF 2022
                                4


                           JUDGMENT

Petitioners, 18 in number, are the owners of the passenger

autorikshaws classified as three wheeled vehicle. For plying as a

taxi, had obtained the permits issued by the Regional Transport

Authority, Ext.P1 whereby certain restrictions for not plying the

vehicles to pick up passenger or park within the Kochi City were

imposed. Petitioners moved an application for variation of the

terms and conditions of the permit on the ground that there are no

designated parking places for parking the autorikshaws so that the

passengers can use the facility of the autorikshaws and requested

the authorities to change their parking stand. Aforementioned

application has been rejected by the Joint Regional Transport

Officer, Perumbavoor vide order dated 24.11.2021, Ext.P4 on the

ground that they had received twenty two applications from the

owners for variation of the permit to allow any stand within the

Perumbavoor Municipality as parking place. On enquiry, it was

found that Perumbavoor Municipal roads are congested and

numerous vehicles have been allowed to park and to ply

autorikshaws inside the municipality. Perumbavoor Municipality WP(C) NO. 13238 OF 2022

has taken a decision No.27 in the meeting dated 27.11.2017 that

no new permits are allowed for autorikshaws inside the

Perumbavoor Municipality.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the

judgment Ext.P7 of 2015 that such condition of parking the

autorikshaw at designated parking places has been negated on the

ground that no such facility was provided. I am afraid the

aforementioned arguments would not be tenable for the reason

that the judgment is of 2015 and the impugned order in the

instant case is of 2021 based upon the decision of the

Perumbavoor Municipality dated 27.11.2017 vide decision number

27 which has not been challenged in this Court. Reliance has also

been laid to the information received under the RTI vide Ext.P6,

wherein a specific question raised in the application seeking

information from the Revenue Officer vide communication dated

3.08.2015 replying that municipality had not approved or allotted

any stands within the boundaries of the Perumbavoor. The

decision of the Municipality has not been assailed in the present

writ petition. The permit is of 2014, therefore, there cannot be WP(C) NO. 13238 OF 2022

any change of the condition. An attempt has been made to

overcome the decision of the municipality by submitting an

application for allocation of different stand with a purpose to enter

the municipality of Perumbavoor and ply the vehicle which would

increase the congestion in the area and truncate the mobility of

the vehicles already permitted and being plied. Thus, I am of the

view that until and unless the decision of the municipality is not

being challenged, the application has rightly been rejected. The

writ petition sans merits accordingly dismissed.

3. While dealing with the writ petition this Court has come

across that many autorikshaws being plied in Cochin/Ernakulam

and other districts do not follow the traffic rules. They adopt the

rule of convenience and not the rules by stopping at their

convenience for picking up the passengers midway of the journey

and beyond the capacity granted in the permit which results into

risk of accident. Not only this, even the transport vehicles like

passenger private transport buses plied in the City of

Cochin/Ernakulam also perpetually uses the horns in overtaking

and while plying on the road. Most of the vehicles are overtaking WP(C) NO. 13238 OF 2022

each other or the other private vehicles risking the life of the

passengers on the road and other passengers travelling in other

vehicles. Apparently, the buses also looked to be very old. Though

the Motor Vehicle Act does not permit the vehicle to be run

beyond 15 years there may be a cases where fitness certificates

are being issued by the Regional Transport Authority. There has

to be a time-line as to till what time the fitness certificate can be

issued. In other words, whether it can be permitted beyond 15

years by relaxation or granting exemptions.

Accordingly, there shall be directions to the Police

Commissioner of Kochi/Ernakulam as well as the Regional

Transport Authority, Cochin/Ernakulam to immediately issue an

order of prohibiting the private transport buses not to use horn on

city and ply on extreme left side of the road without overtaking

each other or other private vehicles. This direction shall also be

applicable to the autorikshaws and shall ensure that the

registration or issuance of the autorikshaws do not increase per

capita population of Kochi/Ernakulam and to prevent further

congestion of the road as the width of the road owing to the WP(C) NO. 13238 OF 2022

paucity of the place is not conducive for plying transport vehicles

in large number. They should also issue directions to fix the speed

limit of the aforementioned private buses and autorikshaws and

also issue directions for fixing a Governor on the speed so that any

driver who intends to increase the speed is prevented to do so.

Let this order be communicated through the Police Commissioner,

Kochi and Regional Transport Officer for immediate compliance

through Advocate General of the Kerala.

Registry is directed to communicate the order to the Police

Commissioner, Kochi and the Regional Transport Officer,

Ernakulam. They are directed to file the status report regarding

the compliance of the order by 08.06.2022.

Post on 08.06.2022.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL JUDGE nak WP(C) NO. 13238 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13238/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE AUTORICKSHAW PERMIT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 11, 14, 15.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.8120/2015 DATED 26.06.2015 OF THIS HONOURBLE COURT.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF PERMIT SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF PERMIT SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P3 B TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF PERMIT SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P3 C TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF PERMIT SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P3 D TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF PERMIT SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P3E TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF PERMIT SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P3F TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF PERMIT SUBMITTED BY THE 7TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P3G TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF PERMIT SUBMITTED BY THE 8TH WP(C) NO. 13238 OF 2022

PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P3H TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF PERMIT SUBMITTED BY THE 9TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P3 I TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF PERMIT SUBMITTED BY THE 10TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P3 J TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF PERMIT SUBMITTED BY THE 11TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P3 K TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF PERMIT SUBMITTED BY THE 12TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P3L TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF PERMIT SUBMITTED BY THE 13TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P3 M TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF PERMIT SUBMITTED BY THE 14TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P3 N TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF PERMIT SUBMITTED BY THE 15TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P3 O TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF PERMIT SUBMITTED BY THE 16TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P3 P TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF PERMIT SUBMITTED BY THE 17TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P3 Q TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF PERMIT SUBMITTED BY THE 18TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

 WP(C) NO. 13238 OF 2022


Exhibit P4         TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER

NO.R7/1645/2021/EMP DATED 07.01.2022 (WRONGLY DATE SHOWN AS 24.11.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT).

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION DTED 24.07.2015 SUBMITTED BY ONE MR.ALIYAR.

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 31.07.2015 GIVEN TO MR.ALIYAR.

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.06.2016 IN WPC NO.28482/2015 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED TO MR.ALIYAR BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 17.09.2020.