Madhu M vs Regional Transport Authority
2023 Latest Caselaw 71 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
     FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 16TH POUSHA, 1944
                         WP(C) NO. 38135 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

             MADHU M
             AGED 51 YEARS
             S/O. MADHAVAN, NADAYIL HOUSE, MEENATHUVAADU
             VALLIKKUNNAM, MAVELIKKARA-690 501.

             BY ADV K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR


RESPONDENTS:

     1       REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
             PALACE RD., CIVIL STATION WARD, ALAPPUZHA,
             KERALA-688 001.

     2       THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
             PALACE RD., CIVIL STATION WARD, ALAPPUZHA,
             KERALA-688 001.
OTHER PRESENT:

             SRI.JIMMY GEORGE, GP


      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   06.01.2023,   THE    COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.38135 of 2022                             2

                     P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                  ---------------------------------------
                     W.P.(C) No. 38135 of 2022
                   --------------------------------------
               Dated this the 6th day of January, 2023

                                   JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-

i. To quash Exhibit P4 by issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order ii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 1st respondent to reconsider the renewal applications as well as replacement applications submitted by the petitioner in the light of operation by the petitioner with his vehicle sought to be replaced, forthwith, or at any rate within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice;

iii. To dispense with the filing of translation of vernacular documents iv. To issue any other appropriate writ, direction or order which this Honourable Court deem fit in the circumstances of the case.

2. The petitioner challenged Ext.P4 order passed by the Regional

Transport Authority, Alappuzha, by which the applications of the petitioner

for renewal of permit and replacement is rejected. Ext.P4 order was passed

on 13/10/2021. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Government pleader.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner concede that, Ext.P4 is

an appealable order. But, the learned counsel submitted that, there is no

provision in the statute to condone the delay in filing an appeal before the

State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The learned counsel submitted that, due

to Covid-19 pandemic and due to some illness of the petitioner, the

petitioner was not able to submit the appeal in time. The petitioner submits

that the RTA has not considered any of the contentions, while passing

Ext.P4 order and the findings in Ext.P4 are unsustainable. The learned

counsel also submitted that, if an opportunity is given to the petitioner, he

will be able to substantiate his contention before the RTA.

5. The learned Government Pleader seriously oppose the

contention raised by the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader

submits that when an alternative remedy is available, this Court may not

entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India. The

learned Government Pleader submitted that, there are several decisions,

which support that legal position. The learned Government Pleader also

submitted that on merits also there is nothing to interfere with Ext.P4.

6. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the

respondents. It is true that Ext. P4 is an appealable order. The nation was

facing a pandemic and even the Honourable Supreme Court interfered in

several cases enlarging the time to file appeal and other proceedings

before the statutory authorities. It is true that there is some laches on the

part of the petitioner. But the petitioner produced Ext.P5 medical

certificate also, to show that he was laid up . As far as the merits of the

case is considered, I don't want to make any observation. In the peculiar

facts and circumstances of the case, I think Ext.P4 can be set aside on

condition that this judgment need not be taken as a precedent. Without

making any observation on merits, Ext.P4 can be set aside and there can be

a direction to the 1st respondent to reconsider the applications in

accordance to law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following manner;

(i) Ext. P4 is set aside. There will be a direction

to 1st respondent to reconsider renewal

application and replacement application

submitted by the petitioner in accordance to law,

untrammelled, by any observation in this

judgment.

(ii) I make it clear that, I have not considered the

matter on merits and the 1 st respondent is free to

pass appropriate orders in accordance to law.

(iii) I also make it clear that this judgment need

not be taken as a precedent in future.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHN JUDGE AMR

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38135/2022

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE 4 MONTHS TEMPORARY PERMIT ISSUED UNDER SECTION 87(1) (d) BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF LATER MODEL VEHICLE K1- 4/R-9539 ISSUED ON 8.7.2011.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT ISSUED IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE VEHICLE VALID TILL 30.12.2019. DATED 11/12/2019

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 11.7.2018.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SAID DECISION DATED 13.10.2021 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE SHOWING THE ABOVE FACT.