Steephan vs The Regional Transport Authority
2024 Latest Caselaw 5724 Ker

Kerala High Court

Steephan vs The Regional Transport Authority on 20 February, 2024

Author: N.Nagaresh

Bench: N.Nagaresh

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                   PRESENT
                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
     TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1945
                            WP(C) NO. 1645 OF 2024
PETITIONER:

              STEEPHAN
              AGED 66 YEARS
              S/O ANTHONY, PIDIYATH HOUSE, THALORE P.O,
              THRISSUR, PIN - 630306

              BY ADVS.
              P.DEEPAK
              NAZRIN BANU


RESPONDENTS:

     1        THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
              THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
              REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, THRISSUR,
              PIN - 680003

     2        THE SECRETARY
              REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR,
              REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, THRISSUR,
              PIN - 680003

              SRI.S.GOPINATHAN-SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO.1645 OF 2024
                                2




                          JUDGMENT

Dated this the 20th day of February, 2024

The petitioner seeks to issue a writ of mandamus to

command the 1st respondent-Regional Transport Authority to

pass final orders on the application for renewal of Ext.P1

Permit in compliance of Ext.P3 judgment of the State

Transport Appellate Tribunal in M.V.A.A. No.186 of 2017.

2. By Ext.P3 judgment, the State Transport

Appellate Tribunal has set aside Ext.P2 decision of the

Regional Transport Authority revoking Ext.P1 Permit and

further directed the Regional Transport Authority to consider

and pass orders on the application for renewal of Ext.P1

Permit submitted by the petitioner.

3. The petitioner states that the petitioner was

running a Stage Carriage Permit on the route Kodungallur- WP(C) NO.1645 OF 2024

Mayannur as per Ext.P1 Permit. Ext.P1 Permit was valid till

17.04.2015. The application submitted by the petitioner for

renewal was rejected on the ground that the vehicle covered

by the Permit is in tax arrears. The petitioner filed

M.V.A.A. No.186 of 2017 before the State Transport

Appellate Tribunal invoking Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles

Act. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal allowed the

appeal and set aside Ext.P2 decision of the Regional

Transport Authority as per Ext.P3 order. After setting aside

Ext.P2 decision, the Regional Transport Authority was

directed to consider the application for renewal of Permit

submitted by the petitioner within a period of two months and

in the event of such application being allowed, the Regional

Transport Authority was directed to consider the application

for replacement of vehicle.

4. The grievance now projected by the petitioner is

that the petitioner has submitted an application for WP(C) NO.1645 OF 2024

Temporary Permit, pending consideration the application for

Regular Permit as directed by the State Transport Appellate

Tribunal. The said application for Temporary Permit is not

being considered.

5. Senior Government Pleader entered appearance

on behalf of the respondents and resisted the writ petition.

The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit. In the

counter affidavit, the 2nd respondent has stated that the

petitioner preferred appeal before the State Transport

Appellate Tribunal and the State Transport Appellate

Tribunal by Ext.P3 judgment set aside the order under

appeal, directing the Regional Transport Authority to

reconsider the renewal application. The replacement

application was also directed to be considered thereafter.

The 2nd respondent submitted that the application for

renewal of Regular Permit will be considered as directed by

the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in due course of WP(C) NO.1645 OF 2024

time.

6. The 2nd respondent further submitted that for

consideration of Ext.P6 application for Temporary Permit

under Section 87(1)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, even

though the decision of the Regional Transport Authority

revoking the Permit and rejecting the application for

replacement was set aside by State Transport Appellate

Tribunal. The renewal of Permit could be considered only

from 17.04.2015 to 16.04.2020. Further renewal from

16.04.2020 cannot be considered, since there is no

application for renewal of Permit submitted by the petitioner

for that period. Therefore, the question of consideration of

application for Temporary Permit under Section 87(1)(d) of

the Motor Vehicles Act does not arise. Application for

Temporary Permit under Section 87(1)(d) of the Motor

Vehicles Act can be considered only when in cases where

applications for renewal of Permit are filed within the period WP(C) NO.1645 OF 2024

prescribed under Section 81 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Hence, the petitioner's application for Temporary Permit

does not come under the purview of Section 87(1)(d) of the

Motor Vehicles Act.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Senior Government Pleader representing

the respondents.

8. It is not disputed that the application submitted by

the petitioner for renewal of Regular Permit for the period

from 17.04.2015 to 16.04.2020 is pending. The 2 nd

respondent will object to application for Temporary Permit at

this stage stating that there is no valid application for

renewal of Regular Permit for the period subsequent to

16.04.2020. During the pendency of this writ petition, the

petitioner has submitted Ext.P7 application for renewal of

Regular Permit for the period beyond 16.04.2020. Therefore,

ordinarily there cannot be any objection in considering the WP(C) NO.1645 OF 2024

Temporary Permit application.

9. The Senior Government Pleader would point out

that the application for further renewal of Regular Permit has

been filed by the petitioner after more than four years and

therefore it is hopelessly barred by limitation. Furthermore,

the Stage Carriage of the petitioner was registered in the

year 26.07.2000 and it has completed more than 20 years.

That is also a reason, which may affect the consideration of

the petitioner's application, contended the Senior

Government Pleader.

10. To the said argument, the counsel for the

petitioner pointed out that the application for replacement of

vehicle has also been made and the same is also pending.

11. It is not in dispute that an application for renewal

of Regular Permit for the petitioner's vehicle to conduct

Stage Carriage service on the route Kodungallur-Mayannur,

is still pending consideration before the Regional Transport WP(C) NO.1645 OF 2024

Authority, pursuant to the direction of the State Transport

Appellate Tribunal. As regards grant of Temporary Permit

prayed for by the petitioner, at present the petitioner has

submitted Ext.P7 application for renewal of Regular Permit

after 16.04.2020. It is true that there is a delay in submitting

that application. However, the petitioner has submitted an

application for condonation of delay along with the said

application. Therefore, the reason for non-consideration of

the petitioner's application for Temporary Permit does not

exist any more.

12. The Senior Government Pleader would point out

that in the facts of the case, the petitioner's application for

Temporary Permit cannot be considered under Section 87(1)

(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

13. In this regard, the counsel for the petitioner relies

on a judgment of this Court in Abdul Wahab v. Regional

Transport Authority [2015 (4) KLT 268], wherein this Court WP(C) NO.1645 OF 2024

in somewhat similar circumstances held that the application

submitted by the petitioner therein can be considered as one

submitted under Section 87(1)(c) of the Act.

14. In the light of the afore facts and since the

application for renewal of Regular Permit of the petitioner is

pending consideration for the period from 17.04.2015 to

16.04.2020 and for the period from 18.04.2020 to

17.04.2025, the respondents are bound to consider those

applications as well as the application for Temporary Permit

submitted by the petitioner treating it as one filed under

Section 87(1)(c) of the Act.

The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the

1st respondent-Regional Transport Authority to consider the

application for renewal of Regular Permit submitted by the

petitioner for the period from 17.04.2015 to 16.04.2020 as

also Ext.P7 application for renewal of Regular Permit in the

ensuing Regional Transport Authority Board Meeting itself WP(C) NO.1645 OF 2024

positively or within a period of two months. Pending

consideration of the said application, Ext.P6 application for

grant of Temporary Permit shall be considered by the 2nd

respondent-Secretary Regional Transport Authority within a

period of two months.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE hmh WP(C) NO.1645 OF 2024

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1645/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER VALID TILL 17.04.2015 DATED 26.9.2013 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 05.04.2017 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE STAT DATED 16.05.2019 IN MVAA NO: 186 OF

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE QUERY DATED 27.10.2023 SUBMITTED UNDER THE RTI ACT, 2005 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 05.01.2024 Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY PERMIT DATED 09.01.2024 Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF PERMIT DATED 08/02/2024 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FOR REPLACEMENT DATED 09/02/2024 Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 15/01/2024 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 09/02/2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT