T.B.Azees vs The Regional Transport Authority
2023 Latest Caselaw 9154 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
     WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 1ST BHADRA, 1945
                      WP(C) NO. 25770 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
           T.B.AZEES, AGED 41 YEARS
           S/O BAVA, RESIDING AT THUTHUPPILLY HOUSE,
           WEST VENGOLA,PERUMBAVOOR., PIN - 683556

          BY ADV SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL


RESPONDENTS:
     1     THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
           MUVATTUPUZHA, MINI STATION,
           PAZHAPALLY, MUDAVOOR PO, MUVATTUPUZHA ,
           REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY., PIN - 686669

    2     THE SECRETARY
          THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
          MUVATTUPUZHA, MINI STATION,
          PAZHAPALLY, MUDAVOOR PO,
          MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686669

    3     MAHIN KUNJU, AGED 50 YEARS
          S/O ABDUL RAZAQ, NELLIKKAL HOUSE,
          KARIMUGAL P.O.,PUTHENCRUZ - 682303

          BY ADVS.
          R1-R2 BY GP ADV.SREEJITH,
          ADV.P.DEEPAK
          ADV. NAZRIN BANU(K/1317/2020)


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 25770 OF 2023     : 2 :




                          JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the registered owner of a stage

carriage bearing registration No. KL 38/ F 1119, operating

on the route Thripunithura- Angamaly via Ambalamugal and

Kizhakkambalam. The 3rd respondent was holding a regular

permit in respect of a stage carriage bearing No. KL-17D-

4345, operating on the route Perumbavoor -

Puthukkalavattam. It is stated that since the said vehicle

was not operating for the last 4 years, it has been

dismantled. The 3rd respondent filed an application for

replacement of the said vehicle with another vehicle bearing

No. KL-7BG-8020. The 1st respondent, by Ext.P3, rejected the

said application for replacement. The 3 rd respondent,

challenging Ext.P3 order of the 1st respondent rejecting the

application for replacement, preferred an appeal under

Section 81(9) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter

referred to as 'the Act' for short), before the State Transport

Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for

short) as M.V.A.A.No.203 of 2023. Along with the appeal, the

3rd respondent preferred an interlocutory application

(M.P.No.1605/2023), seeking for a direction to the 2 nd

respondent to issue a temporary permit for the vehicle

No.KL-7BG-8020 in place of vehicle bearing No.KL-17D-

4345, which is stated to be dismantled. Ext.P5 order of the

Tribunal reads as follows:

"Heard. The second respondent is directed to issue temporary permit to the petitioner's stage carriage bearing Regn.No.KL-07/BG 8020 in the place of petitioner's own stage carriage bearing Regn.KL 17/D 4345 on the route Perumbavoor - Puthukkalavattom for a period of 20 days from today."

2. Challenging Ext.P5 order of the Tribunal, the

petitioner has filed this writ petition. It is to be noted that

the petitioner is not a party to the proceedings before the

Tribunal.

3. According to the petitioner, Ext.P5 order is not

passed in accordance with law and is in total disregard to the

provisions under Section 87(1) (a) to (d) of the Act. It is

contended that since the rejection of the application for

replacement is challenged in the appeal, there cannot be an

order for issuance of temporary permit in the appeal.

Accordingly, it is contended that the interim order passed by

the Tribunal is beyond the scope of the appeal and against

the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

4. The power of the Tribunal to pass interim order

cannot be disputed. Rule 10 of the Kerala State Transport

Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1988 empowers the Tribunal to

pass interim orders either in the nature of stay or suspension

or order of direction.This Court in Sabu v. RTO,

Trivandrum [2000 KHC 117 : 2000 (1) KLT 647] has

considered the scope of Rule 10 of the State Transport

Appellate Tribunal Rules and held that pending disposal of

an appeal, the Tribunal can pass interim orders,pending

appeal.The contention of the petitioner is that, the interim

order passed by the Tribunal is beyond the scope of an

appeal and against the provisions of the Act.

5. The petitioner could have very well got himself

impleaded in M.V.A.A.No.203/20213 before the Tribunal and

sought for vacating the interim order on the basis of the said

contentions.It is not for this Court to consider the legality of

Ext.P5 order in a writ petition under Art 226 of the

constitution at this stage. The petitioner will be free to

approach the Tribunal with appropriate application for

impleading and to vacate Ext.P5 order.

With the liberty as above, this writ petition is dismissed.

sd/-

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE SB

APPENDIX PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT IN RESPECT OF STAGE CARRIAGE BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-38F-1119 ON THE ROUTE THRIPUNITHURA-ANGAMALY VIA AMBALAMUGAL AND KIZHAKKAMBALAM

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER VIDES ORDER NO.C6/55651/2007/EM DATED 17-03-2008

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT AT ITS MEETING HELD ON 17-06-2023 IN ITEM NO.20

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF MVAA NO. 203 /2023 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 19-07-2023

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN M.P.NO.1605/2023 IN MVAA NO.203/2023 DATED 24-07- 2023 ALONG WITH TYPED COPY

Exhibit R3(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2000(1) KLT 647