Kerala High Court
Bindu.K vs The Regional Transport Authority, ... on 6 March, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 5575 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
BINDU.K
AGED 42 YEARS
W/O MAHENDRAN, BINDU NIVAS, KEEZHATHUR,
PATHIRIYAD PO, PINARAYI,KANNUR, PIN - 670741
BY ADV K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, VATAKARA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
VATAKARA, KERALA, PIN - 673104
2 THE SECRETARY
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, VATAKARA,
KOZHIKODE, KERALA, PIN - 673104
SRI.S. GOPINATHAN, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 06.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.5575 of 2024
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 6th day of March, 2024
The petitioner is holder of a Regular Permit, who operate
service on the route Kannur- Kozhikode in respect a Stage
Carriage bearing registration No.KL-58AG-207. The permit is
valid upto 25.03.2023.
2. The petitioner states that by Ext.P2, the permit
granted to the petitioner was cancelled by the 1 st respondent
stating that the vehicle was involved in an accident. The
petitioner has filed a statutory appeal against the said order
and the State Transport Appellate Tribunal has stayed the
operation of the said order in M.V.A.A. No.153/2022.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though
the cancellation has been stayed, the application submitted by
the petitioner for renewal of permit is not being considered.
The petitioner has also submitted Ext.P6 application for
replacement of vehicle. Ext.P6 application for replacement
can be considered only after the Regular Permit is renewed.
For the time being, the petitioner is running the Stage
Carriage on the basis of a Temporary Permit, which is valid
upto 23.03.2024. The counsel for the petitioner urged that
since the cancellation of permit stands stayed by the order of
a competent Tribunal, there is nothing which prevents the
respondents from considering the application of the petitioner
for renewal of the Regular Permit.
4. Senior Government Pleader entered appearance
and resisted the writ petition, filing a Statement. On behalf of
the respondents, it is contended that as per Rule 153(2) of the
Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, it shall be a condition of
the permit of a transport vehicle that the holder shall exercise
effective supervision over the work of all his employees to
ensure operation of the vehicle in conformity with the Act and
Rules. The accident of the vehicle occurred due to the act /
omission of the employees of the petitioner. It was the
responsibility of the petitioner-permit holder to ensure that
only experienced and responsible persons are being
employed. It was in such circumstances that the permit
granted to the petitioner was cancelled.
5. Now that the permit is cancelled, the petitioner
cannot aspire for renewal of permit unless the cancellation is
finally set aside by a competent Tribunal. What is now
passed by the Tribunal is only an interim order or stay of the
operation. As long as the cancellation of the permit is not
found to be illegal or arbitrary, the respondents will not be able
to renew the permit granted to the petitioner.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Senior Government Pleader representing the
respondents.
7. Ext.P3 is the application for renewal of permit
submitted by the petitioner. Ext.P6 is the application for
replacement. The existing permit stands cancelled by Ext.P2
order of the RTA. Ext.P2 order has been challenged by the
petitioner and the State Transport Appellate Tribunal has
stayed the operation of cancellation.
8. The fact remains that the State Transport Appellate
Tribunal has not taken a final decision in the matter. When the
respondents are defending their action in cancelling the
Regular Permit issued to the petitioner, even if the
respondents are directed to take a decision on renewal
application, they cannot take a different view. With regard to
the application for renewal or replacement of the vehicle, the
Senior Government Pleader submitted that the application has
been considered in the RTA meeting on 27.02.2024 and
decision is awaited.
9. Taking into consideration the entire facts and
circumstances of the case, I am of the view that it would be
only proper to direct the State Transport Appellate Tribunal to
pass final orders on M.V.A.A. No.153/2022 preferred by the
petitioner within a time frame, so that, if the petitioner is
successful in the Tribunal, her application for renewal of
permit and replacement of vehicle can be considered in
accordance with law.
The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the
State Transport Appellate Authority, Ernakulam to consider
M.V.A.A. No.153/2022 and finally dispose of the same, within
a period of six weeks.
Sd/-
N.NAGARESH
JUDGE
spk
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5575/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT DATED
17.08.2022
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 25.07.2022 TAKEN BY
WAY OF CIRCULATION
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE RENEWAL OF
THE PERMIT DATED 03.10.2022
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 22.11.2022
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT NOW
OPERATING BY THE PETITIONER VALID TILL
23.03.2024 DATED 30.11.2023
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER FOR REPLACEMENT
DATED 20.01.2024
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT REGARDING THE
REMITTANCE OF FEE DATED 20.01.2024
