Kerala High Court
O.A. Abbaskhan vs The Regional Transport Authority on 24 March, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 5787 OF 2023
PETITIONER/S:
O.A. ABBASKHAN,
AGED 51 YEARS, S/O ABDUL LATHEEF,
ORAYATHIL HOUSE, KANJIRAPPALLY P.O.,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686507
BY ADV M.JITHESH MENON
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
KOTTAYAM, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE,
CIVIL STATION P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686002,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2 THE SECRETARY
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, CIVIL STATION P.O.,
KOTTAYAM., PIN - 686002
3 THOMAS V. PHILIP
VAVOLICKAL HOUSE, PULICKAL KAVALA,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686515
BY ADV K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR
SMT MABLE C KURIAN, SR. GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 24.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.5787 of 2023 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner herein is an existing stage carriage operator
operating on the route Chengamkunnu-Thekoy with stage carriage
bearing registration No.KL-34/C-7767. It appears that the 3rd respondent
is holding a regular permit on the route Manimala-Kanjirappally via
Chengamkunnu - Thekoy. As there was no service through
Karimpumkayam, the public residing in that area submitted certain
representations before the authorities requesting the operation of service
during the sector. The 3rd respondent had also submitted an application
for variation of permit to provide five trips through the sector. An enquiry
was conducted through the field officer, and the report was submitted
reporting that the variation of permit sought for by the 3rd respondent
was a long-felt need and it is in accordance with the public requirements.
2. The petitioner states that he had appeared before the RTO
and had raised his objections. According to the petitioner, without
properly considering the objections raised by the petitioner and without
adverting to any relevant facts, the RTA, placing reliance on the report of
the field officer, has passed Ext.P1 decision.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that Ext.P1 decision of the
RTA is against all tenets of law. According to the petitioner, the variation,
as sought by the 3rd respondent, could not have been granted as a
matter of right. It is also stated that while taking Ext.P1 decision, the RTA
has not stated why the valid objection raised by the petitioner was
ignored. It is on these assertions that this writ petition is filed seeking to
quash Ext.P1 decision of the RTA granting variation of the permit as well
as Ext.P3 notice of timing conference scheduled on 22.02.2023.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent.
After reiterating the facts, it is contended that the 1st respondent had
considered the matter in its meeting held on 29.11.2022, and the order
was passed taking note of all the relevant facts. According to the
respondent, no valid objection was raised from any side, including the
petitioner herein. It is further stated that while taking Ext.P1 decision, the
report of the route enquiry officer that the curtailed portion is served by
other stage carriages and that there is no scarcity of transportation was
taken note of. The RTA had also taken note of the fact that through the
varied portion of about 3.1 Km., there are no stage carriages as of now.
5. I have heard Sri. M. Jithesh Menon, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Gopinathan Nair, the learned counsel
appearing for the 3rd respondent and Smt. Mable C. Kurian, the learned
Senior Government Pleader.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated
the contentions and also refer to the law laid down in Prasad V. RTA,
Ernakulam [2005 KHC 564].
7. Sri. Gopinathan Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the
3rd respondent, vehemently opposed the contentions and submitted that
the entire aspects of the matter were considered by the RTA while taking
a decision.
8. Having considered the submissions advanced, I find that though
various contentions are raised by the petitioner in the writ petition with
regard to the nature of objections filed by him, the objection filed before
the RTA is not placed before this Court. I also find that the principle which
is relied on by the petitioner and is stated by this Court in Ext.P2
judgment cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of the case. In
the said judgment, the learned Single Judge took note of the fact that the
order passed by the officer is cryptic. In the instance case, the entire
aspects were considered by the officer while issuing Ext.P1. The
respondents have also placed on record Ext.R3(a) sketch of the route.
The RTA took note of the fact that the permit holder intends to curtail the
existing route from Chenappadi-Alinchuvadu Junction to Kallarakkavu
Junction through Chenappadi Town, Kadavanalkadavu Bridge and
Paruthumala. The fact that there is no scarcity of transportation along the
curtailed route and there are no stage carriages through the varied
portion was also taken note of by the RTA.
In that view of the matter, I find no reason to interfere with Ext.P1
order. This writ petition will stand dismissed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V,
JUDGE
NS
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5787/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE RTA,
KOTTAYAM DATED 29.11.2022 IN ITEM NO.26.
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE DICTUM LAID DOWN IN PRASAD
VS RTA, ERNAKULAM, 2005 KHC 564 [2005[2] KLT
227].
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE FOR TIMING
CONFERENCE DATED 15.02.2023.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CASE STATUS OBTAINED FROM
THE COURT SITE SHOWING THAT INTERIM ORDER WAS
GRANTED IN WP[C] NO.5651/2021.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXT.R3 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH OF THE ROUTE
EXT.R3 (b) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY
THE MEMBER OF KANJIRAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH
DATED 9.12.2022
