The Regional Transport Authority vs Jacob Mathew
2023 Latest Caselaw 6085 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.V.N.BHATTI
                                    &
             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
  FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 19TH JYAISHTA, 1945
                         WA NO. 1004 OF 2023
   AGAINST THE JUDGMENT WP(C) 2541/2023 OF HIGH COURT OF
                                 KERALA
APPELLANT/S:

    1       THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
            MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686673
    2       THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
            MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686673

            BY ADV T. K. VIPINDAS, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER


RESPONDENT/S:

            JACOB MATHEW
            AGED 50 YEARS
            S/O MATHAI, MAMPILLYKUZHIYIL HOUSE, OORAMANA P.O,
            RAMAMANGALAM., PIN - 686663
            BY ADV K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR


     THIS    WRIT     APPEAL   HAVING     COME   UP    FOR    ADMISSION    ON
09.06.2023,     THE    COURT   ON   THE    SAME       DAY    DELIVERED    THE
FOLLOWING:
 W. A. No. 1004 of 2023
                                    -2-




                            JUDGMENT

Dated this the 9th day of June, 2023

S. V. N. Bhatti, C. J.

We have heard Mr. Vipindas, learned Senior Government

Pleader and Mr. K. V. Gopinathan Nair, learned counsel for the

respondent.

2. The learned Single Judge, through the judgment impugned in

the appeal, directed the appellants before us to reconsider Ext. P3 in

the light of Ext. P5 and pass orders in accordance with law. The

circumstances leading to the filing of the writ petition firstly are not in

dispute and secondly are stated with more than the required clarity.

Hence they are not adverted to in the appeal. The fact in issue between

the appellants and the respondent is on a condition incorporated in Ext.

P4 dated 26.09.2022, which reads as under:-

"5. We have verified the observations made by the route enquiry officer in the light of objections raised in the open hearing of this authority. We are of the common opinion that more number of trips are required in Maneed sector in public W. A. No. 1004 of 2023

interest. Hence, the applicant is directed to modify the application, in such a way that two more trips to Maneed sector in the proposed time schedule, for the benefit of travelling public and students of an ill-served area."

3. Mere reading of the said condition would go to show that the

request of the respondent before us definitely has not been considered

in the light of Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. By keeping

the legal obligation in perspective, the writ petition has been ordered

by the impugned judgment.

4. Learned Senior Government Pleader contends that under

Section 72 of the Act, the transport authority has the power and

discretion to consider granting stage carriage permit with such

modifications as it deems fit, etc. Therefore, the argument justifying

the condition imposed in Ext. P4 is that the condition is well within the

power of the competent authority and reconsideration is not warranted.

5. Per contra, Mr. Gopinathan Nair contends that the subtle

difference in application and appreciation of Sections 72 and 80 of the

Act is not noticed in the argument of the appellants. While making an

order under Section 72, modifications are suggested. The applicant W. A. No. 1004 of 2023

definitely has the remedy of appeal against any modification or

condition which, according to the operator, is not either motorable, or

profitable, would pursue the remedy of appeal and work out the

grievances.

6. In the case on hand, in our view, he has rightly explained to

the Court that the authority is directing the applicant to resubmit the

application as suggested by the authority. If such a course of action is

followed, the applicant would be denied the right of appeal and the

grant of a stage carriage permit would also be ineffective or unviable.

We appreciate the distinction sought to be introduced in the application

of Sections 72 and 80 of the Act.

We are of the view that in the case on hand, as rightly held by

the learned Single Judge, calling upon the applicant to resubmit the

application in the manner in which the authority has desired, is not

sustainable in law. Application as made can be considered in

accordance with law and orders are made. The applicant if finally

aggrieved by the order would certainly work out the remedies in

accordance with law. Exts. P3 and P5 are considered and orders made W. A. No. 1004 of 2023

within one month from today.

With the above observation, the writ appeal stands dismissed.

Sd/-

S. V. N. BHATTI CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

BASANT BALAJI JUDGE

Eb

///TRUE COPY/// P. A. TO JUDGE