Kerala High Court
Noushad vs The Secretary, Regional Transport ... on 27 June, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 22001 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
NOUSHAD
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O. ABDUL KHADAR, ASSANIKKANAKATH HOUSE,
KOOTTAI, MANGALAM, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 676562.
BY ADVS.
SAJU J.VALLYARA
MARIA ANGEL
RESPONDENT:
THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
MALAPPURAM
CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM P.O., MALAPPURAMBY
DISTRICT, PIN - 676505.
BY
S. GOPINATHAN - SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 27.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.22001 OF 2024
:2:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 27th day of June, 2024
The petitioner has applied for grant of regular permit
on the route Tirur - Koottai - Azhimugham - Purathur and the said
application was considered and rejected by the R.T.A.,
Malappuram by Exhibit P1 proceedings on the ground that the
route is over-saturated.
2. Against Exhibit P1, an appeal has been preferred
before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal as M.V.A.A.
No.52/2024 and in the said appeal, the petitioner has filed M.P.
No. 517/2024 seeking for a direction to issue temporary permit.
The Tribunal as per Exhibit P2 order has directed the respondent
to issue temporary permit for 40 days. Even though the petitioner
has produced Exhibit P2 before the respondent along with the
application for temporary permit on 18.03.2024, the respondent
has not so far taken any steps to implement the same.
3. The failure on the part of the respondent to comply
with Ext.P2 order of the Tribunal is illegal and wholly unjustified,
contends the petitioner. It is the statutory duty of the respondent
WP(C) NO.22001 OF 2024
to give effect the orders of the Tribunal. The act of the
respondent in refusing to comply with the order of the Tribunal is
clearly against the judicial discipline. The respondent, who is the
Executive Officer, is duty bound to obey the orders and not
expected to act as Appellate Authority over Ext. P2. There is total
failure on the part of the respondent in performing his statutory
duty, contends the Counsel for the petitioner.
4. Government Pleader submits that Ext.P2 order of the
State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam, is not in
accordance with law and the respondent has taken expeditious
steps to file review in the State Transport Appellate Tribunal,
Ernakulam.
5. Heard.
6. It is not disputed that the petitioner has applied for
Temporary Permit and in M.P.No.517 of 2024 in MVAA No.52 of
2024, the Tribunal has directed the respondent to issue
Temporary Permit to the petitioner to operate on the route Tirur -
Koottai - Azhimugham - Purathur for a period of 40 days. As long
as Ext.P2 is not reviewed or superseded by any other order of the
Court, the mere intention of the respondent to file a review
WP(C) NO.22001 OF 2024
cannot be a reason not to comply with the direction of the State
Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam.
In the circumstances of the case, the writ petition is
disposed of directing the respondent to issue Temporary Permit
to petitioner as applied for within a period of two weeks. This will
be without prejudice to the right of the respondent to prefer any
review against Ext.P2 order.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
pvv JUDGE
WP(C) NO.22001 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22001/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
MALAPPURAM HELD ON 18.12.2023 VIDE
ITEM NO. 214.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER IN M.P.
NO. 517/2024 IN M.V.A.A. NO. 52/2024
DATED 07.03.2024 PASSED BY THE STATE
TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REQUEST DATED
18.03.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE RESPONDENT ALONG WITH
EXHIBIT P-2 ORDER AND TEMPORARY PERMIT
APPLICATION.
