Kerala High Court
Sabu Varghese vs Sudha Sasikumar on 4 August, 2025
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
2025:KER:59388
WA No.1868 of 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1947
WA NO. 1868 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.07.2025 IN WP(C) NO.19863 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS 3 AND 5 IN WP(C):
1 SABU VARGHESE
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O.VARGHESE, CHERAVATTOM HOUSE, MANGADU P.O, PAZHANJI,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680542
2 NISHAD K.K.,
S/O KASIM, KODAMANATH HOUSE, AYYAPPESAN PADY, PAINKULAN
P.O, THRISSUR, PIN - 679531
BY ADV SHRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1,2,4 AND 6 IN WP(C):
1 SUDHA SASIKUMAR,
AGED 55 YEARS
W/O SASIKUMAR, BALAKRISHNA MOTORS, GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR,
PIN - 680101
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 P.V.RAMAKRISHNAN,
S/O.VELAYUDHAN, PADIYANKATTIL HOUSE, KUNDANNOOR P.O.,
KUMBALANGAD, VADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR, PIN - 680590
5 C.A.ABRAHAM,
AGED 71 YEARS S/O.ABRAHAM, 612, MAYOORAM, MAYILVAHANAM,
SHORNUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679121
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI P DEEPAK SR
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD ON 04.08.2025, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:59388
WA No.1868 of 2025
2
JUDGMENT
Amit Rawal, J.
The present intra court appeal is directed against the
judgment of the Single Bench whereby the writ petition with
the following prayers preferred by the first respondent has
been allowed.
I. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or
such other writ, order or direction calling for the
records leading to Ext.P13 and quash the same.
II. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or
such other writ, order or direction commanding
the 1st respondent to reconsider the application for
renewal of Ext.P2 permit submitted by the
petitioner on 17.6.2011 on the original route
Guruvayoor-Palakkad and grant renewal of the
said permit on the curtailed route Palakkad-
Pattambi in exercise of power conferred under
Section 103(2) of the Act.
2. Succinctly, the facts in brief are that respondent-
writ petitioner had submitted an application to the RTA
Palakkad for issuance of a valid permit of the vehicle bearing
No. KL-8-AJ-9550 on 19.6.2006 from Palakkad to Gurvayoor
via Pattambi. The Secretary RTA vide communication dated
20.6.2006 granted the permit with a time table to ply the
2025:KER:59388
vehicle from Palakkad to Guruvayur via Pattambi effective
from 20.6.2006 to 19.6.2011 with an indication that the
application for renewal of the permit should be submitted 15
days prior to the expiry of the permit. The aforementioned
permit also envisages the writ petitioner-respondent to obtain
the counter signature of the sister RTA, Thrissur for
operating the route from last district point of Palakkad
entering to the Guruvayur falling in Thrissur district.
3. The sister RTA refused to counter sign which was
assailed by the respondent-writ petitioner before this Court
in WP(C) No.31309 of 2006. The learned Single Bench vide
judgment dated 27.11.2006 rejected the aforementioned
claim led to institution of Writ Appeal No.712 of 2007.
4. The writ appeal was dismissed noticing certain
facts that originally the respondent-writ petitioner had a
permit for a particular period and his application for
renewal was rejected and therefore was constrained to move
a fresh application which was granted vide order Ext.P1.
5. It is pertinent to mention here that the
respondent-writ petitioner during all these period plied his
2025:KER:59388
vehicle between Palakkad and Pattambi and there was no
penal or adverse action was taken by any competent
authority under the law. On expiry of the validity of the
permit in 2011, the writ petitioner submitted an application
for its renewal for the route Palakkad to Guruvayur, in the
same manner as it was originally issued, with a clarification
that the vehicle had actually operated only on the Palakkad to
Pattambi route. The said application was rejected by the RTA
vide order dated 29.7.2011 which was assailed before the
State Appellate Tribunal vide Appeal bearing M.V.A.A No.315
of 2011.
6. Vide judgment dated 24.7.2014, State Transport
Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam allowed the appeal and set
aside the order dated 29.7.2011 of the RTA, Palakkad and
remitted the matter to reconsider the application submitted
for renewal of permit by the petitioner or for temporary
permit on the route 'Palakkad-Pattambi' after affording an
opportunity of being heard to the writ petitioner as well as to
the KSRTC. During the interregnum, i.e., in the same year,
the Government had promulgated a National Scheme, under
2025:KER:59388
which the route from Ottappalam to Guruvayur was declared
as a notified route. Meaning thereby, only the State
Transport vehicle would ply on that route.
7. The aforementioned order of the Tribunal was not
assailed by any of the parties to the lis as well as by the
appellant who came into picture at a much later stage, which
will be referring to the later part of our observations.
8. It is pertinent to mention here that along with
order Ext.P4, the Regional Transport Authority passed a fresh
order dated 24.10.2014 in compliance of the directions of the
State Transport Appellate Tribunal permitting the writ
petitioner to submit an application in the route Palakkad-
Pattambi in the open forum of the next RTA.
9. Accordingly, the petitioner vide Ext.P6 submitted
an application for the aforementioned route ie., Palakkad-
Pattambi on 1.6.2015. Since this application was pending
consideration was impelled to approach this Court for
issuance of appropriate directions vide W.P.(C) No.33910 of
2014. This Court vide order dated 29.9.2015 disposed of the
writ petition in the following manner:
The petitioner has reportedly filed an application dated
2025:KER:59388
2.6.2015 for renewal of permit on the modified
curtailed route (Palakkad-Pattambi). The petitioner
asserts that the same is in consonance with Ext.P6
decision of the first respondent and Ext.P1 judgment of
the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. 2. I direct the
first respondent to consider the application afore stated
dated 2.6.2015 treating the same as one for renewal of
the existing permit on the modified route. The same
shall be done with notice to the petitioner and the
Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. Every
endeavour shall be made to take a decision thereon in
the next meeting convened by the first respondent. The
Writ Petition is disposed of.
10. Since the aforementioned directions were not
complied with, the petitioner was impelled to approach this
Court once again by filing W.P.(C) No. 28037 of 2019 and
this Court vide judgment dated 25.10.2019 directed the
authority to decide the application for renewal within a
period of six weeks after notice of petitioner and all affected
persons. The order dated 25.10.2019 reads thus:
The petitioner has approached the 1 st respondent by
Ext.P6 representation for renewal of permit on the
modified curtailed route Pattambi-Palakkad in the
light of Ext.P2 judgment. The application for
renewal is pending.
2. In the light of above, there shall be a direction to
1st respondent to take a decision on the application
for renewal within a period of six weeks after notice
of petitioner and all affected persons.
11. The matter was taken up by the Regional
2025:KER:59388
Transport Authority in the proceedings held on 31.01.2020,
and the application was rejected on the ground that there
was no valid permit, as the petitioner had not availed the
opportunity to seek curtailment or modification under
sub-section (1) of Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The
aforementioned order was assailed by the respondent-writ
petitioner before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal vide
Appeal No.39 of 2020.
12. The State Appellate Tribunal vide judgment
dated 5.6.2020 allowed the appeal, set aside the order and
directed the RTA to reconsider the application for renewal
submitted by the petitioner on the modified curtailed route
Palakkad to Pattambi on merits and pass order in accordance
with law within a period of two months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
13. It is pertinent to mention here that at the stage
of the appellate Tribunal, Sabu Varghese and C.C Abraham
were impleaded as additional respondents 3 and 4. The order
of the Appellate Tribunal was assailed by the newly
impleaded respondents before the STAT/ the appellants
2025:KER:59388
herein vide WP(C) No.14847 and 15810 of 2020. The learned
Single Bench of this Court, by judgment dated 04.01.2021,
dismissed the writ petitions on the ground that the impugned
order of the RTA, Palakkad, merely directed reconsideration
of the application for renewal of the permit on the modified
route, on its merits.
14. The aforementioned judgment was assailed
before the Division Bench of this Court vide intra court
appeal bearing No.146 of 2021. This Court vide judgment
dated 5.9.2024 disposed of the writ appeal by observing that
the question of maintainability of the application submitted
for modified route was permitted to be raised before the
Regional Transport Authority.
15. Regional Transport authority vide order dated
11.3.2025 dismissed the application of the petitioner in the
following manner:
For varying the conditions of a stage carriage
permit( including curtailment of route) under Section
80(3) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it is mandatory to file
application in the form "PVA" as stipulated in Rule 179 of
Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 by remitting requisite
application fee prescribed in Rule 164 of KMV Rules,
1989. In this case, the permit holder never filed such an
application for variation of permit. Only if the variation of
permit is allowed, permit holder will be permit ( on
2025:KER:59388
modified/varied/curtailed route) under Section 81(2) of
Motor Vehicles entitled to apply for renewal of the Act,
1988 in the form "PRA" as stipulated in Rule 172(2) of
Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 by remitting requisite
application fee prescribed in Rule 164 of KMV Rules,
1989. In short, the permit holder neither filed application
for variation of permit as above/obtained varied permit,
nor applied in form PRA as above for renewal of permit
on the modified curtailed route). A mere request
submitted on 02.06.2015 by the permit holder which
requests this authority to consider his earlier application
for renewal of permit (submitted 17.06.2011) on the
route Guruvayur-Palakkad as the one for the modified
route Palakkad-Pattambi, will not suffice the procedural
formalities stipulated in Motor Vehicles Act and Rules
framed there under.
Moreover, there was no vehicle attached to this permit
since 12.10.2012 to till date, ie., for the long 12 years,
and in this duration, the ownership and possession of the
vehicle KL 08 AJ 9550 is seen transferred and vehicle
was operated by attaching to another permit on a
different route by an another person. Though now the
possession of the vehicle is taken back by reverse
transfer of ownership wef. 19.12.2019, it is still not
attached to the above permit. Hence, as per the dictum
laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the
judgment dated 06.04.2016 in WA No. 2486, 2455 &
2769 of 2015, no permit can exist in vacuum without a
vehicle attached to it. Hence, in exercise of the powers
conferred upon under Section 86(1) of Motor Vehicles
Act 1988 read with Rule 185 of Kerala Motor Vehicles
Rules, 1989, this authority hereby cancel the regular
stage carriage permit C6/10/2006/P. The permit holder
shall surrender the original permit before the Secretary,
RTA who is directed to record in the permit the order of
cancellation. Hence, for the above reasons, and in the
absence of any formal application for renewal of permit
on the modified route, the request dated 02.06.2015 is
found not maintainable and hence rejected.
16. The pith and substance of the reasoning
2025:KER:59388
extracted above, reveals that since the petitioner did not seek
the modification of the original permit issued in 2006 and
had plied the vehicle on a different route, directed the
authority to cancel the regular stage carriage permit bearing
No.C6/10/2006/P with a direction to the permit holder to
surrender the original permit before the Secretary, RTA with
a further direction to the RTA to cancel the permit and
rejected the application for renewal of permit on the modified
route. The aforementioned order gave a cause of action to
the respondent-writ petitioner to assail before this Court in
WP(C) No.19863 of 2025. In the pending writ petition, the
appellants, who were impleaded as additional respondents
before the STAT, filed a counter affidavit reiterating the
decisions of the RTA. However, they failed to disclose how
they were affected and intentionally withheld the vehicle
number and other relevant details.
17. Learned Single Bench on ponderance of Section
103, 72 of the Motor Vehicles Act found that once there was a
direction by the STAT to treat the fresh application for
renewal on the modified route from Palakkad to Pattambi
2025:KER:59388
had not been assailed by any of the authorities much less the
subsequent order of the RTA dated 24.10.2014 to submit a
fresh application, in the absence of any action taken by the
KSRTC or by the State against the respondent-petitioner,
allowed the writ petition.
18. Mr. K.V Gopinathan Nair, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant in support of the
memorandum of intra court appeal has raised the following
submissions:
i. In the absence of counter signature by the Sister RTA,
Thrissur District for plying the vehicle on the route Palakkad
to Guruvayur, the permit bearing No.C6/10/2006/P was an
invalid permit and therefore the respondent could not have
plied the vehicle on a shorter route ie., from Palakkad to
Pattambi and even did not apply to the last destination ie.,
Ottappilavu falling in the district Palakkad.
ii. No application under sub-section (3) of Section 80 of the
Motor Vehicles Act was submitted, therefore, the entire
period during which the vehicle was plied, was based on an
invalid permit. Even if the authorities failed to take action,
2025:KER:59388
the provisions of the law cannot be violated with impunity.
iii. No cause of action accrued in favour of the writ petitioner
to apply for a renewal of the application in 2011 in view of
the fact that the permit Ext.P1 was invalid.
iv. The timetable of the stage carriage, as prescribed in the
invalid permit marked as Ext.P1, was for the route from
Palakkad to Guruvayur. In the absence of a counter-signature
and in light of the promulgation of the National Scheme,
under which the route to Guruvayur, falling within the
Thrissur district, was declared as a notified route, the writ
petitioner ought to have submitted an application for
variation of the permit to ply the vehicle on the modified
route from Palakkad to Ottappilavu.
v. Since the appellants were permitted to implead at the
stage of RTA on the basis of the order of the STAT dated
24.7.2014, the liberty granted by the Division Bench of this
Court in the judgment dated 5.9.2024 in W.A No.146 of 2021,
the objection with regard to the non assailment of the order
dated 24.7.2014 as well as 24.10.2014 would pale into
insignificance.
2025:KER:59388
vi. If at all the petitioner was aggrieved, they could have
submitted a fresh application for a route from Palakkad to
Pattambi, but not an application for renewal.
19. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent submitted that the order of the Single Bench is
based upon the appreciation of the provisions of the Section
103 of the Motor Vehicles Act as the provisions of the
aforementioned Act would come into play immediately on
promulgation of the scheme by the Government. Since the
route to Guruvayur, falling within a different district, had
been notified, it was incumbent upon the concerned Regional
Transport Authority to pass an order under clause (iii) of sub-
section (2) of Section 103 of the Act, precisely which has
been noticed by the learned Single Bench. There are no
deterrent or consequential provisions under the Act in cases
where a permit holder plies the vehicle on a shorter route
than the one granted, as the petitioner had never operated
the vehicle beyond the Palakkad district. The appellants have
failed to disclose their bonafides by giving the particulars of
the permit as to how and in what manner affected and locus
2025:KER:59388
standi to assail the orders of the authority as well as an
application for renewal of the permit on the modified route
and urges this court for dismissal of the writ appeal.
20. We have heard the learned counsel for the
parties and appraised the paper book and of the view that
there is no merit and substance in the submissions.
21. Section 80 of the Act is worth extraction:-
80. Procedure in applying for and granting permits. -
(1) An application for a permit of any kind may be made
at any time.
(2)A [Regional Transport Authority, State Transport
Authority or any prescribed authority referred to in sub-
section (1) of section 66] shall not ordinarily refuse to
grant an application for permit of any kind made at any
time under this Act:Provided that the [Regional
Transport Authority, State Transport Authority or any
prescribed authority referred to in sub-section (1) of
section 66] may summarily refuse the application if the
grant of any permit in accordance with the application
would have the effect of increasing the number of stage
carriages as fixed and specified in a notification in the
Official Gazette under clause (a) of sub-section (3) of
section 71 or of contract carriages as fixed and specified
in a notification in the Official Gazette under clause (a)
of sub-section of section 74:Provided further that where
a [Regional Transport Authority, State Transport
Authority or any prescribed authority referred to in sub-
section (1) of section 66] refuses an application for the
grant of a permit of any kind under this Act, it shall give
to the applicant in writing its reasons for the refusal of
the same and an opportunity of being heard in the
matter.
(3)An application to vary the conditions of any permit,
other than a temporary permit, by the inclusion of a new
route or routes or a new area or by altering the route or
2025:KER:59388
routes or area covered by it, or in the case of a stage
carriage permit by increasing the number of trips above
the specified maximum or by the variation, extension or
curtailment of the route or routes or the area specified
in the permit shall be treated as an application for the
grant of a new permit:Provided that it shall not be
necessary so to treat an application made by the holder
of stage carriage permit who provides the only service
on any route to increase the frequency of the service so
provided without any increase in the number of
vehicles:Provided further that,(i)in the case of variation,
the termini shall not be altered and the distance covered
by the variation shall not exceed twenty-four kilometres;
(ii)in the case of extension, the distance covered by
extension shall not exceed twenty-four kilometres from
the termini,and any such variation or extension within
such limits shall be made only after the transport
authority is satisfied that such variation will serve the
convenience of the public and that it is not expedient to
grant a separate permit in respect of the original route
as so varied or extended or any part thereof.
(4)A [Regional Transport Authority, State Transport
Authority or any prescribed authority referred to in sub-
section (1) of section 66] may, before such date as may
be specified by it in this behalf, replace any permit
granted by it before the said date by a fresh permit
conforming to the provisions of section 72 or section 74
or section 76 or section 79, as the case may be, and the
fresh permit shall be valid for the same route or routes
or the same area for which the replaced permit was
valid:Provided that no condition other than a condition
which was already attached to the replaced permit or
which could have been attached thereto under the law in
force when that permit was granted shall be attached to
the fresh permit except with the consent in writing of
the holder of the permit.
(5)Notwithstanding anything contained in section 81, a
permit issued under the provisions of sub-section (4)
shall be effective without renewal for the remainder of
the period during which the replaced permit would have
been so effective.
22. No doubt, sub-section (3) of Section 80
2025:KER:59388
empowers a permit holder to seek variation of the permit
under the circumstances prescribed therein. However,
neither the Act nor the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989
envisage any deterrent or consequential action against a
permit holder for plying the vehicle on a shorter route. There
could be circumstances where a permit holder exceeds the
route prescribed in the permit. The case in hand is of such a
nature where a permit holder had even not plied the vehicle
to the last destination point in Palakkad district but a shorter
distance ie., Palakkad to Pattambi which is shorter by 14 km
to Ottappilavu.
23. It is a matter of record that the route from the
last destination point to Guruvayur was declared as a notified
route. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, the permit
issued in Ext.P1, granting the permission to the respondent-
writ petitioner to operate on the Palakkad-Pattambi route,
could not have been permitted to remain in force. It was,
rather, incumbent upon the authorities to act in accordance
with the provisions of clause (iii) of sub-section (2) of Section
103 of the Motor Vehicles Act, as has already been noted by
2025:KER:59388
the learned Single Bench in the impugned order. However for
the sake of understanding, we extract the same.
103. Issue of permits to State transport undertakings. -
(1) Where, in pursuance of an approved scheme, any
State transport undertaking applies in such manner as
may be prescribed by the State Government in this behalf
for a stage carriage permit or a goods carriage permit or
a contract carriage permit in respect of a notified area or
notified route, the State Transport Authority in any case
where the said area or route lies in more than one region
and the Regional Transport Authority in any other case
shall issue such permit to the State transport
undertaking, notwithstanding anything to the contrary
contained in Chapter V.
(2)For the purpose of giving effect to the approved
scheme in respect of a notified area or notified route, the
State Transport Authority or, as the case may be, the
Regional Transport Authority concerned may, by order,
(a)refuse to entertain any application for the grant or
renewal of any other permit or reject any such
application as may be pending;(b)cancel any existing
permit;(c)modify the terms of any existing permit so as
to(i)render the permit ineffective beyond a specified date;
(ii)reduce the number of vehicles authorised to be used
under the permit;(iii)curtail the area or route covered by
the permit in so far as such permit relates to the notified
area or notified route.(3)For the removal of doubts, it is
hereby declared that no appeal shall lie against any
action taken, or order passed, by the State Transport
Authority or any Regional Transport Authority under sub-
section (1) or sub-section (2).
24. Sub clause (iii) of sub Section 2 of Section 103
empowers the competent authority to curtail the area and
route covered by the permit once the permit relates to the
notified area or notified route.
2025:KER:59388
25. On perusal of the order dated 24.07.2014,
makes it evident that permission was granted to the writ
petitioner to submit an application for the route Palakkad-
Pattambi, for the reason that the route up to Guruvayur had
been declared as a notified route. The order aforementioned
was not challenged. Even though this Court vide judgment
in W.A No.146 of 2021 dated 5.9.2024 had given liberty to
the maintainability of the application made by the writ
petitioner for renewal of permit on the modified route to be
raised by all the parties before the Regional Transport
Authority, that would not take away the statutory duty of the
Regional Transport Authority to act under Section 103 of the
Act.
26. The argument that the provisions of Section 103
of the Act could not have been taken in the absence of
compliance of the provisions of Rule 242 of the Kerala Motor
Vehicles Rule. The same reads thus:
242. Cancellation of existing permits.‐
(a) The State or Regional Transport Authority concerned
shall, before making an order either cancelling any
existing permit under clause (b) or modifying the terms of
any existing permit under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of
Section 103 of the Act, for the purpose of giving effect to
2025:KER:59388
an approved scheme, issue notice in Form 'C' informing
the affected operators, of the action proposed to be taken
and giving them time of not less than thirty days to make
representations against the proposed action.
27. The aforementioned Rules prescribes that a
procedure has to be followed by the competent authority and
the steps has to be taken in terms of the provisions of
Section103 of the Act and nothing beyond.
28. Section 103 of the Act falls under Chapter VI
whereas Section 80 falls under Chapter V. The provisions of
Section 98 was also referred to during the course of the
hearing that the provisions of Section 103 would override the
provisions of Section 80 which falls under Chapter 5. Thus
there was no occasion for the respondent-writ petitioner to
submit an application under sub Section 3 of Section 80 in
view of the over riding provisions under Section 98 of the Act.
We are unable to fathom that how the authorities have failed
to adhere to the orders of the STAT as well as of this Court
from time to time as referred to above by rejecting the
application for renewal of the permit without noticing or even
referring to the provisions of Section 103 of the Act. It was
incumbent upon the authorities to apply the aforementioned
2025:KER:59388
provisions, rather than reject the application for renewal on
the ground that the permit, Ext.P1, had become invalid due to
the declaration of the notified route up to Guruvayur. All
these factors have been consciously considered by the
learned Single Bench while allowing the writ petition. We do
not find any illegality and perversity in the impugned order.
The writ appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly
dismissed.
SD/-
AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE
SD/-
sab P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
JUDGE
2025:KER:59388
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure-A1 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT
FILED BY THE 1 ST APPELLANT, WHO WAS
THE ADDL. 3RD RESPONDENT IN MVAA NO.39
OF 2020
Annexure-A2 A ROUGH SKETCH SHARING THE DETAILS OF
THE ROUTE
