Kerala High Court

Leegi Joseph vs The Regional Transport Authority on 23 May, 2025

Author: Amit Rawal

Bench: Amit Rawal

WA NO. 1460 OF 2024                  1




                                                       2025:KER:36349

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                    PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

                                         &

            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.

                         RD
        FRIDAY, THE 23        DAY OF MAY 2025 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1947


                              WA NO. 1460 OF 2024

        AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.08.2024 IN WP(C) NO.34895 OF

2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

            LEEGI JOSEPH,
            AGED 55 YEARS,
            W/O JOSEPH (LATE), ALAPPAT HOUSE, KURUMBILAVU P.O.,
            PAZHUVIL, NEAR MISSION HOSPITAL, THRISSUR,
            PIN - 680564.


            BY ADV SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

    1       THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
            THRISSUR, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOL P.O THRISSUR ,
            REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 680003.

    2       THE SECRETARY,
            REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, CIVIL STATION,
            AYYANTHOL P.O THRISSUR, PIN - 680003.

    3       K.A.NASEER,
            KIZHUVALIPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHERPU WEST P.O., THRISSUR,
            PIN - 680573.

    4       RIYAS V.A.,
            VALIYAKATH HOUSE CHERPU WEST P.O., THRISSUR, PIN -
            680573.
 WA NO. 1460 OF 2024           2




                                                2025:KER:36349

    5      MAJEED P.S.,
           PALIYATHAZHATH HOUSE, CHERPU WEST P.O., THRISSUR,
           PIN - 680573.


OTHER PRESENT:

           SPL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI SANTHOSH KUMAR
           SRI.K.T.RAVEENDRAN FOR R3

      THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.05.2025,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WA NO. 1460 OF 2024           3




                                                2025:KER:36349

                       JUDGMENT

Amit Rawal, J.

Present intra-court appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala

High Court Act, 1958 is directed against the judgment of the

Single Bench dated 21.08.2024, whereby the Writ Petition

bearing No.34895 of 2023 filed by the appellant, challenging the

order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT) dated

14.08.2020 (Ext.P7), has been dismissed.

2. Succinctly, the facts in brief for adjudication of the lis

are enumerated hereunder:

The appellant/petitioner had purchased a stage carriage

permit from one Mr.Riyas V.A. for the route Thriprayar -

Thrissur - Koorikuzhy Via Valappad - Edamuttam - and

Kothakulam. The vehicle which was issued permit earlier was

substituted by another vehicle bearing No.KL-08/AR-3313. On

demise of the husband of the appellant, appellant became the

permit holder of the aforementioned stage carriage. When Riyas

was holding the aforementioned permit, had submitted an

application to the Secretary, RTA, Thrissur for interchanging

the timings with Mr. Majeed. The application for interchanging

2025:KER:36349

the timings is permissible by invoking the provisions of Rule 212

of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. The aforementioned

proceeding resulted in wide publication of the notice and in the

absence of any objection, Secretary, RTA, Thrissur, vide Ext.P4

order dated 14.08.2018, allowed the interchange of the timings

as under:

"Proceedings of the Secretary RTA, Thrissur

Present: Sri. Ummer K M

Sub: Mvs - SC KL-58 A 8157- timings - Orders issued - bearing registration No.

Ref: 1. Request from

(c) Sri. Riyas. V. A, Valiyakath House, Cherpu West, Thrissur.

(d) Sri. Majeed. P. S, Paliyathazhath (H), Cherpu West, Thrissur.

2. Timing Conference held on 14.08.2018.

Order No. C4/2141/2018/R dtd 14.08.2018

The S/C KL-58 A 8157 is covered by a regular permit on the route Thriprayar - tsr-koorikuzhy Via Valappad-edamuttam and Kothakulam with Settled Timings Vide Rta Decision Dt 22/10/2001 item No-160{Ref- c2/28299/2001/R- Vide reference cited above the permit holder has applied for interchange of timing in respect of S/C KL 58 A 8157 with S/C KL 08 AK 9842. The applicant was heard on 19.04.2018 before Regional Transport Officer. The timing conference of the vehicle KL-58 A 8157 was conducted on 14.08.2018 and no objection has received. Hence I Secretary RTA Thrissur, hereby approve and issue the timings in respect of Stage Carriage KL-58 A 8157 to operate on the above route.






                                                        2025:KER:36349

                       THRIPRAYAR                      THRISSUR

                  A                  D           A                  D

                                06.34          7.34               7.49

                08.49           10.08          11.08              11.32

                12.32               2.21       3.21               3.52

                4.52                5.00       6.00               6.16

                7.16                7.36       8.36               9.10

           10.10 (HALT)


                                                      Sd/-
                                             Secretary, RTA Thrissur"

3. The 3rd respondent K.A.Naseer, existing carriage

operator in the route of Thriprayar Beach - Thrissur, had, with

respect to the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-46/C-5355

with certain set of timings, challenged the aforementioned order

and preferred a revision petition before the State Transport

Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam. The 3rd respondent, by relying

upon Rule 214 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989,

contended before the Tribunal that the interchange of timings

would only be applicable for a period of ten days and not for an

unlimited period as indicated in the order of the Secretary, RTA.

At the relevant point of time, the permits were in the name of

Riyas and Majeed. Despite having noticed that Riyas and Majeed

2025:KER:36349

did not contest, resulted in an order dated 14.08.2020, whereby

the order of the Secretary had been set aside, giving cause to

the appellant/petitioner, subsequent purchaser of the permit, as

per the order dated 6.10.2023.

4. Learned Single Bench, noticing all these facts, did

not accept the contentions submitted by the appellant/petitioner

and upheld the order of the Tribunal, dismissing the writ

petition. But while dismissing the writ petition, issued a

direction to the Secretary, RTA to fix the timing for the

operation of stage carriage No.KL-08/AR-3313 within a period of

two months and until the timing is fixed, appellant/petitioner

was permitted to operate on the timing as per the previous

order dated 14.08.2018 i.e., Ext.P4.

5. Mr.Sajeev Kumar K. Gopal, learned counsel appearing

on behalf of the appellant submitted that the entire thrust in the

revision petition filed by respondent No.3 as well as the

ponderance by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, had been

on an incorrect provision of the Rule, i.e., Rule 214 of the Kerala

Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, for, the said Rule only applies to a

single permit holder having more than one stage carriage,

2025:KER:36349

whereas for interchanging the timing between different permit

holders, Rule 212 is applicable. Ext.P4 order dated 14.08.2018

was strictly as per the provisions of Rule 212 and therefore,

there was no time limit for fixing the timing under the head of

interchangeability of the timings.

6. On the other hand, Sri.K.T.Ravindran, the learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent submitted

that the orders under challenge, i.e., of the Single Bench as well

as the Tribunal, are perfectly legal and justified and do not

require any different interpretation, much less the Secretary,

RTA did not give any opportunity of hearing to respondent no.3,

who was seriously prejudiced by the interchanging of timing, as,

respondent No.3 was the holder of the permit of stage carriage

bearing No.KL-46/C-5355 on the route of Thriprayar Beach -

Thrissur i.e. the same route of which the timing was sought to

be interchanged as per the order of the Secretary, RTA.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and

appraised the paper book.

8. Rules 212 & 214 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules,

1989 read thus:

2025:KER:36349

"212. Schedule of timings.-- (1) The State or Regional Transport Authority may from time to time--

(a) by a general order prescribe a schedule of timings for stage carriages other than those belonging to State Transport Undertakings running on specified routes, or

(b) by a special order prescribe a schedule of timings for each stage carriage other than that belonging to State Transport Undertaking.

(2) The changes ordered by the Transport Authority in the timings of a service shall not be considered as variation of permit under sub-section (3) of Section 80 of the Act. (3) The State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport authority may, by resolution, delegate to its Secretary the powers conferred on it under this rule subject to any conditions that it may prescribe:

Provided that the State or Regional Transport Authority shall not however vary the timings of a service without giving to the interested permit holders an opportunity to represent their case.

213. xxx xxx xxx

214. Interchangeability of timings of stage carriage.-- When a permit holder has more than one vehicle plying exclusively on the same route, he may, notwithstanding that a schedule of timings has been fixed for each vehicle, use temporarily, and in any case for not more than ten days at any one time any one of the other vehicles to maintain all or any of the timings fixed for a particular vehicle on the route:

Provided that--

(a) intimation thereof is sent to the Authority which granted the permit and to the Authority, if any, which has endorsed or

2025:KER:36349

extended the permit, within seven days of such use, and

(b) the schedule of timings granted to the other vehicles of the permit holder on the route are not affected."

9. On plain and simple perusal of the provisions of the

aforementioned Rules, it is discerned that Rule 214 is applicable

in respect of a single permit holder having more than one stage

carriage, whereas Rule 212 is applicable to two permit holders

having different stage carriages for the purpose of seeking a

change in the timings like the interchange. The entire focus of

the Tribunal as well as the Single Bench had been on the

applicability of the Rule 214, which would not be applicable, for,

the challenge on behalf of respondent No.2 was only with

respect to one stage carriage, whereas, interchanging timings

had been between two people, as per the order of the Secretary,

RTA dated 14.08.2018, i.e., between Riyas and Majeed. Even

otherwise, at that point of time, Riyas and Majeed did not have

any interest in contesting the revision petition, probably they

were not making some profit and were intending to transfer or

resell the permit. Be that as it may.

10. In our considered view, the order of the Tribunal is

not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case, as, the

2025:KER:36349

applicability of the Rule 214 is on a different tangent viz-a-viz

the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. This aspect has

also been escaped from the notice of the learned Single Bench,

though a specific ground no.C in this regard has been taken. The

same is extracted herein below:

"C) The finding of the Tribunal in Exhibit P-7 to the effect that the order passed, Exhibit P-4 by the 2 nd respondent is under Rule 214 of the KMV Rules is totally incorrect. It is not an interchange of timings coming under Rule 214.

Exhibit P-7 would reveal that based on the request from the respondents 4 and 5, a timing conference was convened on 14-08-2018. In the said timing conference no objections were received and it is accordingly the proceedings was issued to the petitioner. So obviously Exhibit P-4 is a proceedings issued after complying the requirements under Rule 212 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules. So the Learned Tribunal went wrong in arriving at a finding that Exhibit P-4 is coming under Rule 214 of the KMV Rules. Hence Exhibit P-7 is unsustainable and is liable to be interfered by this Hon'ble Tribunal."

11. As an upshot of our findings, we thus set aside the

judgment of the Single Bench as well as of the State Appellate

Transport Authority and allow the writ petition. Consequently,

the writ appeal is allowed. We direct the State Transport

2025:KER:36349

Appellate Tribunal to revisit the issue on the applicability of the

provisions of the law, by restoring the revision petition to its

original number. The parties through their counsels, are

directed to appear before the State Transport Appellate

Tribunal on 30.06.2025. Much time has already been wasted

and we expect the Tribunal to take earnest endeavor to decide

the revision petition as expeditiously as possible. Till such time,