Kerala High Court
Anvar vs Regional Transport Authority on 13 June, 2023
1
WP(C) No.15149 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 23RD JYAISHTA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 15149 OF 2023
PETITIONER/S:
ANVAR,AGED 44 YEARS,S/O HYDROSE KUTTY, MUKRIYATHU, PULLUT,
KODUNGALLOOR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680663
BY ADV K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
2 ND FLOOR CIVIL STATION KAKKANAD , VAZHAKKALA , KOCHI,
KERALA, PIN - 682030
2 THE SECRETARY ,REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM, 2ND
FLOOR CIVIL STATION , KAKKANAD, VAZHAKKALA, KOCHI , KERALA,
PIN - 682030
3 SMT.DR RENU RAJ,IAS DISTRICT COLLECTOR & CHAIRPERSON,
REGIONAL TRANSPROT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
4 SRI. SHAJI MADHAVAN,DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER(LAW)
CENTRAL ZONE 11 ERNAKULAM & MEMBER, RTA ERNAKULAM, PIN -
682030
5 BAIJU, ARAKKAL HOUSE, VADAKKEKKARA P.O, NORTH PARAVOOR, PIN
- 683522
6 RAHIM M.A,MAVELIPPARAMBU HOUSE, PANAYIKKULAM, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 683511
7 SHIYAS,S/O ABDULLA, MULLAKKARA HOUSE, NEENDOOR VADAKKEKARA,
PIN - 683522
BY ADV.PARVATHY K., GOVERNMENT PLEADER - R1 TO R4
BY ADV M.JITHESH MENON -R5 TO R7
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2
WP(C) No.15149 of 2023
C.S DIAS,J.
---------------------------
WP(C) No.15149 of 2023
-----------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of June, 2023 .
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed, inter alia, to quash Ext P8
order passed by the first respondent and declare that the
petitioner is entitled for the grant of a regular permit on
the route North Paravur - Vyttila Hub in preference to
the permits granted in favour of the respondents 5 to 7.
2. The brief relevant facts are: the petitioner had
submitted Ext P1 application on 15.2.2022, to grant a
regular permit in his favour, to operate on the above
route, having a distance of 28 kms, as provided under
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( in short, 'Act'). As
there was an inordinate delay on the part of the
WP(C) No.15149 of 2023
respondents 1 and 2 in considering Ext P1 application,
the petitioner filed WP(C) No.23301/2022 before this
Court, which was allowed by Ext P2 judgment,
directing the first respondent to pass orders on Ext P1
application. Although the first respondent convened a
meeting on 26.9.2022, as per Ext P3 proceeding, the
meeting was adjourned without passing any orders, in
total disregard to the directions contained in Ext P2
judgment. The reason for adjournment is that a bus
owners association had filed a representation against
the grant of regular permit in favour of the petitioner.
As Ext P3 was contemptuous to Ext P2 judgment, the
petitioner filed Contempt Case (C) No.97/2023 before
this Court. However, when the contempt case came up
for consideration, the learned Government Pleader
WP(C) No.15149 of 2023
submitted that the directions in Ext P2 judgment was
complied with. Accordingly, by Ext P4 judgment, the
contempt case was closed. Surprisingly, by Ext P8
order, the first respondent rejected the petitioner's
application. Nonetheless, the first respondent allowed
the applications submitted by the respondents 5 to 7 as
per Exts P5 to P7 orders, respectively, granting all of
them regular permits in respect of principally the same
route applied by the petitioner. As the petitioner's
application was filed first i.e., on 15.2.2022, he is
entitled for a preference. The petitioner has been
treated unequally just because he had approached this
Court. The action of the first respondent is vengeful,
illegal and arbitrary, and in flagrant violation of the
petitioner's fundamental rights guaranteed under
WP(C) No.15149 of 2023
Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India.
Hence, the writ petition.
3. The respondents 5 to 7 have filed a separate
counter affidavits almost on the same lines, inter alia,
contending that the petitioner has an alternative
statutory remedy under Sec.89 of the Act, to prefer an
appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal,
Ernakulam. It is without exhausting the statutory
remedy, the petitioner has approached this Court.
There is no such preference under the Act, as alleged by
the petitioner, to grant him the regular permit because
he had filed Ext P1 application first. Moreover, as
there is no challenge against the regular permits granted
to the respondents 5 to 7, this Court may not interfere
with their permits. The first respondent has considered
WP(C) No.15149 of 2023
the applications submitted by the petitioner and the
respondents 5 to 7 and has passed orders on the
applications as provided under the Act. The petitioner
may be relegated to exhaust his statutory remedy.
Unfortunately, this Court has admitted the writ petition
and has stayed the grant of regular permits to
respondents 5 to 7. Hence, the writ petition may be
dismissed.
4. Heard; Sri.K.V Gopinathan Nair, the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned
Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to
4 and Sri.Jithesh Menon, the learned counsel appearing
for the respondents 5 to 7.
5. It is evident from the pleadings and materials
on record that the petitioner had filed Ext P1
WP(C) No.15149 of 2023
application for regular permit on 15.2.2022. Pursuant
to the directions passed by this Court, in Ext P2
judgment, the first respondent passed Ext P3
proceedings and directed the Secretary, Regional
Transport Authority, to expedite the detailed study of
the grant of fresh permit on the route Moothakunnam -
North Paravur - Edapally (N.H).
6. When, the petitioner preferred Contempt Case
(C) No.97/2028, the same was closed by this Court, by
Ext P4 judgment, on the instructions of the
Government Pleader, that the first respondent had
complied with Ext P2 judgment. The first respondent
had then issued Ext P8 order holding as follows:
"Mean while the applicant filed the Contempt of Court
Case No-97/2023 dtd 12/01/2023 due to the non- compliance
WP(C) No.15149 of 2023
of judgment in WP(C)-23301/2022 dtd 19/08/2022, In view
of the Contempt of Court Case No-97/2023, this authority
again perused the application for fresh permit, route enquiry
report and the report submitted by the above-mentioned
committee and perceived that due to the unsystematic
proposed time schedule in the application, the benefits
offered by the fresh permit to travelling public is much
lesser than the detriment.
Hence this authority is hereby rejected the
application for fresh permit."
(emphasis given)
7. Surprisingly, on the very same day that Ext P8
order was passed, the first respondent has allowed the
applications submitted by the respondents 5 to 7, that
too for operating principally on same route as
claimed by the petitioner, holding that the objections
WP(C) No.15149 of 2023
raised were unsustainable and that permits cannot be
denied.
8. Indisputably, the sole reason for rejecting Ext
P1 application is the unsystematic time schedule
proposed by the petitioner.
9. On an appreciation of the pleadings and
materials on record, this Court finds sufficient force in
the contentions raised by the petitioner that he has been
unequally treated for the reason that he had approached
this Court to expedite the process and, thereafter,
complained of non-compliance of judgment, by filing a
contempt case.
10. When the first respondent has rejected the
objections filed by the objectors in respect of the
applications submitted by the respondents 5 to 7 as
WP(C) No.15149 of 2023
unsustainable, that too principally on the same route, I
do not find any reason for the first respondent to take a
different view when it came to the consideration of Ext
P1 application submitted by the petitioner. The reason
stated in Ext P8 is cavil and untenable. If the
respondents felt that the timing was unsystematic, then
they ought to have given the petitioner an opportunity
of rescheduling the timing and hearing, instead of
perfunctorily rejecting the application.
11. It is trite; justice is rooted in confidence and
justice is the goal of a quasi judicial proceedings also.
Fairness, transparency and equity are hallmarks of
quasi-judicial proceedings.
12. Viewed in the above background and the
findings rendered above, this Court has no hesitation to
WP(C) No.15149 of 2023
hold that the action of the respondents is tainted with
arbitrariness and unreasonableness, which warrants
interference by this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. Therefore, notwithstanding the
alternative statutory remedy under the Act, I am
inclined to entertain and allow the writ petition.
Accordingly, I partly allow the writ petition by
declaring that the petitioner is entitled to a regular
permit as sought for in Ext P1 permit along with
respondents 5 to 7, in the light of the findings rendered
above and the reasons stated in Exts P5 to P7.
However, if the first respondent feels that there would
be a clash of timings between the permits of petitioner
and the respondents 5 to 7, he would be at liberty to
WP(C) No.15149 of 2023
convene a timing conference and finalise the same in
accordance with law.
Resultantly, I allow the writ petition as follows:
(i) Ext P8 order is quashed and set aside.
(ii) Ext P1 application is allowed by declaring
that the petitioner is entitled to the grant of regular
permit as per Ext P1 application.
(iii) The first respondent is directed to issue the
regular permit as per the timings prayed for in Ext
P1.
(iv) Notwithstanding the direction Nos (i) and
(iii), if the first respondent feels that there is a clash
of timings between the permits granted to the
petitioner and respondents 5 to 7, he would be at
liberty to hold a timing conference and reschedule
WP(C) No.15149 of 2023
the timings of the permits of the petitioner and
respondents 5 to 7, after affording all of them an
opportunity of being heard.
(v) The first respondent shall carry out the
entire exercise, in accordance with law and as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a
period of one month from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of the judgment.
(vi) The permits of the respondents 5 to 7 shall
become operational only from the date the above
exercise is complied and completed by the first
respondent.
SD/-
sks/12.6.2023 C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
WP(C) No.15149 of 2023
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15149/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER DATED 15.2.2022
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT IN WRIT PETITION 23301/2022 DATED
19.8.2022
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 26.9.2022
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT IN CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) NO. 97/2023
DATED 3.2.2023
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST
GRANTING REGULAR PERMIT TO THE 5TH
RESPONDENT ON THE ROUTE MOOTHAKUNAM -NORTH
PARAVOOR -VYTILA HUB
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST
GRANTING REGULAR PERMIT TO THE 6TH
RESPONDENT ON THE ROUTE PANANGAD -NORTH
PARAVOOR -VYTILA HUB
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDEROFTHE 1ST RESPONDENT
DATED 23.1.2023 VIDE ITEM NO. 5 GRANTING
REGULAR PERMIT TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT ON
THE ROUTE MOOTHAKUNAM -NORTH PARAVOOR-
VYTILA HUB
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE LST
RESPONDENT DATED 23.1.2023 REJECTING THE
ON THE ROUTE NORTH PARAVOOR-VYTILA HUB
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R7(a) True copy of the report submitted by the
Motor Vehicles Inspector with regard to
the application submitted by the 7th
WP(C) No.15149 of 2023
respondent to operate on the route
Moothakunnam-North Parur-Vyttila Hub dated
18-11-2022
Exhibit R7(b) True copy of the letter dated 2-5-2023
submitted by the 7th respondent producing
the current records of stage carriage KL-
42/4572
Exhibit R6(a) A true copy of the letter dated 27-4-2023
submitted by me producing the current
records of stage carriage KL-10/AA.8425
Exhibit R5(a) A true copy of the report submitted by the
Motor Vehicles Inspector with regard to
the application submitted by the
respondent to operate on the route
Kunjithai-Moothakunnam-North Parur-Vyttila
Hub dated 18-11-2022
Exhibit R5(b) A true copy of the letter dated 27-4-2023
submitted by the respondent producing the
current records of stage carriage
KL-7/AR.8818
