Kerala High Court
Viswanathan vs Sreerag on 25 September, 2024
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
2024:KER:71835
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 3RD ASWINA,
1946
WA NO. 1146 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN WP(C) NO.22295
OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
1 VISWANATHAN,
AGED 66 YEARS
S/O. PANGU, KONOTH HOUSE, PARATHUR, PATTAMBI,
PALAKKAD,, PIN - 678831
2 VIBEESH K.,
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O. VISWANATHAN, KONTHATH HOUSE, PADINJARE
KODUMUNDA, PARUDUR, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD,, PIN -
679305
3 K.P.RAMADAS,
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O. RAMAN NAIR, KARUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KRISHNA
NIVAS, UMMATHUR, KUMBIDI, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD,
-, PIN - 679553
4 PRADEEP.M,
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O. SUBRAMANIAN, MULLATH HOUSE,
2
W.A.No.1146 of 2024
2024:KER:71835
KADAVANAD.P.O., PONNANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,,
PIN - 679586
BY ADV O.D.SIVADAS
RESPONDENT/S:
1 SREERAG
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O SREENIVASAN, CHIRAKKAL HOUSE, PARUTHOOR,
PALLIPURAM, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD, PIN - 679305
2 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
PALAKKAD, (REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY),
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, PALAKKAD, PIN -
678001
3 THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, PALAKKAD, PIN -
678001
4 THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682011
OTHER PRESENT:
SR GP SMT VINITHA B
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARED ON
10.09.2024, THE COURT ON 25.09.2024 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
3
W.A.No.1146 of 2024
2024:KER:71835
ANIL K. NARENDRAN & P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------------------
W.A.No.1146 of 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of September, 2024
JUDGMENT
P.G.Ajithkumar, J.
Respondent Nos.3 to 6 in W.P.(C) No.22295 of 2024 are
the appellants. The writ petitioner is the 1 st respondent. As
per the impugned judgment, the 2 nd respondent was directed
to issue a Temporary Permit to the 1st respondent, as applied
for, within a period of two weeks. The appellants assail that
direction in this appeal filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala
High Court Act, 1958.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the
learned counsel for the 1st respondent and the learned Senior
Government Pleader for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
3. The writ petition was filed seeking a writ of
mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to comply with
Ext.P9 order. Ext.P9 is an order issued by the State Transport
Appellate Tribunal (STAT), Ernakulam, in M.P.No.1009 of 2024
2024:KER:71835
in MVAA No.249 of 2023. The order reads:
"Heard. The 2nd respondent is directed to extend the
interim order in M.P.No.249 of 2023 (sic.) on the route
Thekkekkunnu-Pattambi in respect of the stage carriage
KL-10/Y 9946 for a period of 40 days."
4. The grievance of the 1st respondent was that the
2nd respondent Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad refused
to comply with Ext.P9 order. In fact, Ext.P9 is an order
extending the interim order dated 03.10.2023, which is
Ext.P4. In terms of Ext.P4, the STAT directed the Regional
Transport Authority, Palakkad to grant temporary permit to
the 1st respondent to operate his stage carriage on the route
Thekkekkunnu-Pattambi for a period of 40 days. Alleging that
the said order was not complied with, the 1st respondent filed
W.P.(C) No.3584 of 2024. Ext.P5 is the judgment in that writ
petition. This court, as per Ext.P5 judgment, directed the
Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad to grant temporary
permit within a period of two weeks as directed in Ext.P4
order. Later when the STAT extended the interim order as per
Ext.P9 order directing to issue temporary permit for another
2024:KER:71835
period of 40 days, the 1 st respondent approached this Court
with the present writ petition.
5. The impugned judgment was rendered without
hearing the appellants. They would allege that by rendering the
said judgment without giving them an opportunity of being
heard, the principles of natural justice were violated and for that
reason itself, the said judgment is liable to be set aside. It is
further contended that W.P.(C) No.15034 of 2024 filed by the
appellants challenging the order of the STAT in M.P.No.2147 of
2023 in M.V.A.A.No.249 of 2023 dated 22.11.2023 is pending
consideration of this Court and suppressing that fact, the 1 st
respondent filed the present writ petition. Thus, it is alleged that
he obtained the impugned judgment behind the appellants. It is
also their contention that in total disregard of the law laid down
by this court in Cannanore District Bus Operators
Association v. State of Kerala and others [2017 (3) KLT
126] that pendency of an application for regular permit is not a
ground for granting temporary permit, the STAT has directed to
grant temporary permit to the 1st respondent.
2024:KER:71835
6. The direction in the impugned judgment is to grant a
temporary permit to the 1st respondent as directed by the STAT
in Ext.P9 order. Visibly, the said order is a harmless one as it is
in the nature of ensuring enforcement of an order granted by a
lower authority. But, the learned Single Judge, while rendering
that judgment, was in dark about the pendency of W.P.(C)
No.15304 of 2024. That is a writ petition filed by the appellants
in respect of the same subject matter. It is not known whether
the 1st respondent has notice regarding W.P.(C) No.15034 of
2024 before his filing the present writ petition. Therefore, we
are not venturing to comment anything on the approach of the
1st respondent in filing the writ petition disregarding the
pendency of W.P.(C) No.15034 of 2024. We only observe that
when the said earlier filed writ petition was pending with regard
to the same subject matter, the present writ petition amounted
to abuse of the process of the Court and it is unfortunate that
the learned Government Pleader did not bring pendency of W.P.
(C) No.15304 of 2024 to the notice of the court while disposing
the present writ petition.
2024:KER:71835
7. Be that as it may, the purport and effect of the
impugned judgment is to grant temporary permit to the 1 st
respondent in terms of Ext.P9, which we have extracted
above. Ext.P9 is dated 10.05.2024. Temporary permit for a
period of 40 days was ordered to be granted. The impugned
judgment is dated 28.06.2024 and the direction therein is to
grant temporary permit in terms of Ext.P9 to the 1st
respondent within a period of two weeks. At any rate, the
period of temporary permit given to the 1 st respondent in
obedience to Ext.P9 and the impugned judgment was already
over. In view of that matter, there is no meaning in
deliberating in detail upon the matter.
8. As stated, the effect of the impugned judgment is
only enforcement of Ext.P9 order. The right the 1 st respondent
gained thereby, at the best, was to get a temporary permit for
his stage carriage bearing No.KL-10-Y-9946 for a period of 40
days. That period is already over. Hence, the 1 st respondent is
not entitled to get a temporary permit on the basis of the
impugned judgment for any further period. As such, the
2024:KER:71835
parties have to work out their remedy before the STAT,
Ernakulam.
With the above observation, this writ appeal is disposed
of.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE
dkr
2024:KER:71835
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
12.04.2024 IN WP(C) NO. 15034 OF 2024
RENDERED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
