Kerala High Court
Jaimon Joseph vs The Regional Transport Authority, ... on 5 November, 2025
2025:KER:83585
W.P(C) Nos.2774/24 and 33880/23 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 / 14TH KARTHIKA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 2774 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
SABU C KURIAN,
AGED 52 YEARS,S/O C.P KURYAKOSE, CHANAKAPARAYCKAL
KOTHALA P.O, KOTTA KOOROOPPADA, PAMPADY, KOTTAYAM,
PIN - 686505
BY ADV SHRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM,
PIN - 686002
2 THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM, COLLECTORATE,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002
3 SMT. V.VIGNESHWARI I.A.S,
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, AND CHAIRPERSON, REGIONAL
TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002
4 G. ANANDHAKRISHNAN,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, ERNAKULAM, REGIONAL
TRANSPORT OFFICE, KAKKANAD, PIN - 682030
SMT.SURYA BINOY, SR.GOVT. PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
15.10.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).33880/2023, THE COURT ON
05.11.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:83585
W.P(C) Nos.2774/24 and 33880/23 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 / 14TH KARTHIKA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 33880 OF 2023
PETITIONER/S:
1 JAIMON JOSEPH,
AGED 52 YEARS,S/O JOSEPH KOOTTUMALAKUNNEL HOUSE,
MANJOOR P.O, KOTHANALLOOR P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686603
2 REJI MON MATHEW,
AGED 53 YEARS,S/O MATHEW PANAMKALAYIL, ERAVIMANGALAM,
MUTTICHIRA, VAIKOM KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686613
BY ADV SHRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM,
PIN - 686002
2 THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM,COLLECTORATE,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002
3 SMT. V.VIGNESHWARI I.A.S,
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, AND CHAIRPERSON, REGIONAL
TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002
4 G. ANANDHAKRISHNAN,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, ERNAKULAM, RGIONAL
TRASNPORT OFFICE, KAKKANAD, PIN - 682030
5 ANIL C. SUNNY,
2025:KER:83585
W.P(C) Nos.2774/24 and 33880/23 3
EDATHIL HOUSE, THALAYAZHAM P.O, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 686607
6 SIVAPRASAD.C,
THEKKEVALLASERIL HOUSE, NOTH GATE, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 686607
7 CYRIL.C SUNNY,
EDATHIL HOUSE, THALAYAZHAM P.O, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 686607
8 AMAL NARAYANAN,
THULASI HOUSE, VATAKARA P.O VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 673101
9 NANDU DEV P.S,
POKAPURATH HOUSE, POOTHOTTA P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
682307
10 KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
TRANS BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,REPRESENTED BY
MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN - 695014
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM),SC, KSRTC
SHRI.M.JITHESH MENON -R6 AND R8
SRI.P.G.MAHESHKUMAR
SMT.SURYA BINOY, SR.GOVT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.10.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).2774/2024, THE COURT ON 05.11.2025
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:83585
W.P(C) Nos.2774/24 and 33880/23 4
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.
..............................................................................
W.P(C) Nos.2774 of 2024 and 33880 of 2023
..............................................................................
Dated this the 5th day of November, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioners in both writ petitions are existing stage
carriage operators holding valid regular permits under the Motor
Vehicles Act. They are aggrieved by the proceedings of the Regional
Transport Authority, Kottayam, dated 03.07.2023, which were allegedly
issued without the authority being duly constituted in accordance with
law.
2. It is contended that as per Section 68 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, read with G.O.(P) No. 74/93/PW&T dated 30.07.1993 (SRO
1239/93), the Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam, consists of the
District Collector as Chairperson and two members, namely, the
Superintendent of Police (Law and Order) and the Deputy Transport
Commissioner of the concerned Zone. Rule 125 of the Kerala Motor
Vehicles Rules, 1989 mandates that no business shall be transacted at a
2025:KER:83585
meeting of the Regional Transport Authority unless the Chairman and at
least one other member are present. Rule 129 provides that all questions
which may come before the Regional Transport Authority at any
meeting shall be decided by a majority of members present and voting at
the meeting, and in every case of an equal number of votes, the
chairman shall have and exercise a second or casting vote.
3. In the meeting held on 03.07.2023, the
Chairperson/Chairman alone was present; both members were absent.
The post of Deputy Transport Commissioner, Central Zone II
(Ernakulam), which includes jurisdiction over Kottayam, was vacant.
The 4th respondent, who was only the Regional Transport Officer,
Ernakulam, and not a Deputy Transport Commissioner, was shown in the
minutes as if he were the Deputy Transport Commissioner and a
member of the RTA. The petitioners submit that the said officer, being of
a lower category, could not have been treated as a member of the RTA,
and his presence could not constitute a quorum for transacting business
under Rule 125.
3.1. Hence, the proceedings of the meeting dated 03.07.2023,
2025:KER:83585
including the decisions granting new regular permits (as in W.P.(C) No.
33880/2023) and rejecting the petitioner's variation application (as in
W.P.(C) No. 2774/2024), are ultra vires, illegal, and without jurisdiction.
The orders are void ab initio, having been passed in violation of the
mandatory provisions of the Act and the Rules governing the
composition and quorum of the Regional Transport Authority. The
petitioners accordingly seek the quashing of the proceedings as null and
unenforceable.
4. In the counter affidavit filed by the 1 st respondent, it is
submitted that the writ petitions are devoid of merit and are liable to be
dismissed. The issue relates to the decision of the Regional Transport
Authority, Kottayam, taken in its sitting held on 03.07.2023. In W.P.(C)
No. 2774/2024, the petitioner's application for variation of permit was
rejected, while in W.P.(C) No. 33880/2023, regular permits were granted
to respondents 5 to 9. All such decisions were taken after due
consideration of the reports, objections, and materials placed before the
Authority in accordance with the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules.
4.1. It is contended that the allegations regarding the lack of
2025:KER:83585
quorum and the incompetence of members are baseless. The Regional
Transport Authority, Kottayam, consists of the District Collector as
Chairperson, the Superintendent of Police, and the Deputy Transport
Commissioner of the concerned Zone as members. Though the post of
Deputy Transport Commissioner, Central Zone II, was vacant at the
relevant time, the Regional Transport Officer, Ernakulam, Sri. G.
Anandhakrishnan was placed on full additional charge of Deputy
Transport Commissioner, Central Zone II, by Ext.R1(a) Order No.
A1/12/2023-TC dated 16.05.2023 issued by the Transport Commissioner,
consequent to the promotion of the then incumbent Sri. Shaji
Madhavan. Hence, the officer was lawfully clothed with the powers and
functions of Deputy Transport Commissioner and was competent to
participate as a member of the RTA.
4.2. It is further submitted that Rule 125 of the Kerala Motor
Vehicles Rules requires the presence of the Chairman and one member
to constitute a quorum, and this requirement stood satisfied in the
meeting held on 03.07.2023. Moreover, under Rule 126 of the said Rules,
no act of the Regional Transport Authority shall be deemed invalid
2025:KER:83585
merely because of a vacancy in the membership. The contention that the
4th respondent could not have been given the charge of Deputy
Transport Commissioner since the category of the RTO is a feeder
category of the former is untenable. It is not open to the petitioner to
contend that the 4th respondent ought not have been granted the full
additional charge of Deputy Transport Commissioner. Ext.R(1)(a) in
W.P(C). 2774/2024 is not challenged, nor could it be challenged at the
instance of the petitioner. It is further submitted that even if the act of
giving charge to the 4th respondent is found defective or irregular, it
does not invalidate the acts performed by the 4 th respondent when he
was clothed with the powers and functions of the office.
4.3. The respondents also point out that the petitioners have
not availed the statutory remedy of appeal provided under Section 89 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and have instead invoked the writ
jurisdiction of this Court without exhausting such efficacious remedy.
The decisions of the RTA were taken bona fide, based on enquiry reports
and public representations, and the authority found no justification for
variation or interference with the existing scheme.
2025:KER:83585
4.4. Hence, the respondents submit that the proceedings of the
RTA dated 03.07.2023 were validly convened and conducted, that the
officer holding full additional charge of Deputy Transport Commissioner
was competent to act, and that the decisions taken are legal, proper, and
sustainable in law.
5. Heard Sri. K.V. Gopinathan Nair, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners and Sri. P.C. Chacko (Parathanam), learned Standing
Counsel for KSRTC, Sri.Jithesh Menon, the learned counsel appearing for
respondents 6 and 8 and Smt. Surya Binoy, learned Senior Government
Pleader for the official respondents.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. K.V. Gopinathan
Nair, apart from reiterating the contentions in the writ petitions,
submits that the mere fact that the 4 th respondent was given "full
additional charge" of the post of Deputy Transport Commissioner does
not elevate his rank or empower him to discharge the statutory
functions attached to that higher post. The concept of "full additional
charge" is an administrative arrangement for ensuring continuity of
office and does not amount to a lawful appointment or conferment of
2025:KER:83585
authority to act as a member of a statutory body. The RTA, being a quasi-
judicial authority, can function only with its legally constituted
members; any deviation from its statutory composition vitiates the
proceedings.
6.1. It is further submitted that Rule 126 of the Kerala Motor
Vehicles Rules, 1989, relied on by the respondents, has no application in
the present case. That provision only saves acts done during a
temporary vacancy in membership, provided the Authority is otherwise
properly constituted. It does not authorise the Chairman alone, assisted
by an officer not legally a member, to transact business. In the instant
case, the meeting dated 03.07.2023 was held without the required
quorum under Rule 125, rendering all decisions taken therein null and
void.
6.2. The petitioners, therefore, reiterate that the proceedings of
the RTA, Kottayam, held on 03.07.2023 are illegal and without
jurisdiction, since the Authority lacked quorum and was not validly
constituted in terms of law. The reliance placed on Rule 126 or
administrative charge arrangements cannot cure such a fundamental
2025:KER:83585
defect. Accordingly, the petitioners pray that the impugned proceedings
be set aside.
7. On the other hand, the Senior Government Pleader, Smt.
Surya Binoy, contended that full powers had been conferred on the
concerned officer, which remains unchallenged, and the petitioner could
not have challenged. It is also argued that the actions taken are
protected by the de facto doctrine. She also relied on Central Bank of
India v. Bernard (1990 KHC 595) and Veerendra Kr. Gautam and Others v.
Karuna Nidhan Upadhyay and others (2016 KHC 6478), in support of her
contentions.
8. It is not in dispute that the meeting of the Regional
Transport Authority, Kottayam, was convened on 03.07.2023 under the
chairmanship of the District Collector. The contention urged by the
petitioners is that the meeting was held without quorum, as both the
statutory members--namely, the Superintendent of Police (Law & Order)
and the Deputy Transport Commissioner of the concerned Zone--were
absent. It is also contended that the 4 th respondent, who participated in
the meeting, was only the Regional Transport Officer, Ernakulam, and
2025:KER:83585
not the Deputy Transport Commissioner, and therefore, not competent
to function as a member of the Regional Transport Authority.
9. From the records placed before this Court, it is evident that
at the relevant time the post of Deputy Transport Commissioner, Central
Zone II, was vacant consequent to the promotion of the then incumbent,
and by Order No. A1/12/2023-TC dated 16.05.2023, the 4 th respondent,
Regional Transport Officer, Ernakulam, was placed on full additional
charge of the post of Deputy Transport Commissioner, Central Zone II,
by the competent authority. The said officer, therefore, was discharging
the duties and functions of the Deputy Transport Commissioner as duly
authorised. There is no challenge to the order granting full charge to the
4th respondent, and in the absence of the same, the legality/validity of
the said empowerment need not be considered in this writ petition.
10. Under Rule 125 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the
requirement of quorum for a meeting of the Regional Transport
Authority is the presence of the Chairman and one other member. The
rule does not stipulate that both members must necessarily be present.
In the meeting dated 03.07.2023, the Chairman (District Collector) and
2025:KER:83585
one member holding the powers of Deputy Transport Commissioner
were present. The statutory requirement of quorum was therefore
fulfilled.
11. Moreover, Rule 126 of the said Rules provides that no act of
the Regional Transport Authority shall be deemed invalid merely
because it was done during the period in which the office of any member
was vacant. The purpose of the rule is to ensure continuity of
administration and to prevent disruption of statutory functions merely
on account of a temporary vacancy in membership. When the rule is
read harmoniously with Rule 125, it becomes clear that the proceedings
of the Regional Transport Authority cannot be rendered void merely
because one of the members held the post in an officiating or additional
capacity.
12. Viewed from this angle, the principle underlying the de
facto doctrine also assumes relevance. The law is well settled that the
acts of officers de facto, performed within the scope of their assumed
official authority in good faith and in the interest of the public, are valid
and binding as if performed by officers de jure. An officer, de facto, is one
2025:KER:83585
who is not a mere intruder or usurper but one who holds office under
colour of lawful authority, though his appointment is defective and may
later be found to be defective. Whatever be the defect of his title to the
office, acts done by him when he was clothed with the powers and
functions of the office, albeit unlawfully, have the same efficacy. In other
words, where an officer acts under the law, it matters not how the
appointment of the incumbent is made so far as the validity of his acts is
concerned. There is a presumption of regularity in the acts of officials,
and that the evidential burden is upon him who asserts to the contrary.
De facto doctrine is born of necessity and public policy to prevent
needless confusion and endless mischief.
13. In The State of Telangana v. Managipet
[MANU/SC/1681/2019], the Supreme Court was dealing with a case
where the charge sheet was filed by a Deputy Superintendent of Police
who had already been transferred and hence was alleged to lack
authority to continue the investigation. The High Court had quashed the
charge sheet on that ground. The Supreme Court, however, applying the
de facto doctrine and relying on Gokaraju Rangaraju v. State of A.P.
2025:KER:83585
[(1981) 3 SCC 132] and Veerendra Kr. Gautam v. Karuna Nidhan
Upadhyay [2016 KHC 64788], held that since the officer was discharging
duties conferred on him by the State and had acted in the course of his
public duties and not for personal benefit, the acts done by him were
valid as if they were those of an officer de jure.
14. It is profitable to refer to the Madras High Court judgment
in P. Mahanami v. Tamil Nadu Magnesite Ltd., Salem and Ors.
(MANU/TN/0581/1993), which held as follows:
"12. An officer de facto is one who by some colour or right is in
possession of an office and for the time being performs his duties
with public acquiescence, though having no right in fact. Whereas
an intruder is one who attempts to perform the duties of an office
without authority of law, and without the support of public
acquiescence. No one is under obligation to recognise or respect the
acts of an intruder, and for all legal purposes they are absolutely
void. But for the sake of order and regularity, and to prevent
confusion in the conduct of public business and in security of
private rights, the acts of officers de-facto are not suffered to be
questioned because of the want of legal authority except by some
direct proceeding instituted for the purpose. In all other cases the
acts of an officer de facto are as valid and effectual, while he is
suffered to retain the office as though he were an officer by right,
and the same legal consequences will flow from them for the
protection of the public and of third parties. There is an important
principle, which finds concise expression in the legal maxim that the
acts of officers de facto cannot be questioned collaterally. A person
may be entitled to his designation although he is not a true and
rightful incumbent of the office, yet he is no more usurper but holds
2025:KER:83585
it under colour of lawful authority. The de facto doctrine was
introduced into the law as a matter of policy and necessity, to
protect the interest of the public and the individual where these
interests were involved in the official act of persons exercising the
duties of an office without being lawful officers. The doctrine in fact
is necessary to maintain the supremacy of the law and to preserve
peace and order in the community at large. Indeed, if any individual
or body of individuals were permitted, at his or their pleasure, to
collaterally challenge the authority of and to refuse obedience to the
Government of the State and the numerous functionaries through
whom it exercised its various powers on the ground of irregular
existence of defective title insubordination and disorder of the worst
kind would be encouraged. For the good order and peace of society,
their authority must be up held until in some regular mode their
title is directly investigated and determined. When one holds office
under colour of lawful authority, whatever be the defect of his title
to the office, acts done by him when he was clothed with the powers
and functions of the office, albeit unlawfully, have the same efficacy
and acts done by an officer de jure. The defective appointment of a
de facto officer may be questioned directly in a proceeding to which
he may be a party but it cannot be permitted to be questioned in a
litigation between two private litigants, a litigation which is of no
concern or consequence to the officer concerned. So the writ
Petitioner cannot be heard to say that Sri Madhavan Nair, the
second Respondent had no authority to preside over the meeting of
the Board of Directors wherein it was resolved to place him under
suspension and initiate disciplinary action."
Thus, it can be said that the doctrine is founded on good sense, sound
policy and practical expedience; it is aimed at preventing public
mischief and protecting public and private interests. When an officer,
though not perfectly appointed, is clothed with the powers and
functions of the office and acts under colour of lawful authority, the
2025:KER:83585
validity of his official acts cannot be questioned merely for want of
procedural perfection in his appointment.
15. Applying the above principles, it cannot be said that the 4 th
respondent acted as a total intruder or usurper of office. He was
entrusted by the competent authority with the additional charge of the
post of Deputy Transport Commissioner, and was thus clothed with the
powers and functions of that office. His participation in the RTA meeting
and the decisions taken therein were in the discharge of statutory
functions and in furtherance of public administration. Therefore, when
Rule 125 and Rule 126 are read conjointly with the de facto doctrine, the
proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority held on 03.07.2023
cannot be said to suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity or illegality.
Accordingly, the contention of the petitioners that the proceedings of
the RTA, Kottayam, are void ab initio for want of quorum or competency
of members cannot be accepted.
16. As stated earlier, the order dated 16.05.2023 has not been
challenged. The proceedings dated 03.07.2023, which are impugned in
these writ petitions, were challenged only on 12.10.2023 and 22.01.2024,
2025:KER:83585
respectively, in W.P.(C) No. 33880 of 2023 and W.P.(C) No. 2774 of 2024.
In view of the foregoing findings, I am of the view that the
meeting of the Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam, held on
03.07.2023 was validly convened and conducted in accordance with the
Motor Vehicles Act and the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The
participation of the 4th respondent, who was holding a full additional
charge of the post of Deputy Transport Commissioner, Central Zone II,
cannot be treated as illegal or without authority, and the decisions taken
at the said meeting do not suffer from any illegality. Needless to say, this
judgment will not prevent the writ petitioners from challenging the
actions/orders of the authority on other grounds, if so advised.
The writ petitions are dismissed.
Sd/- MOHAMMED NIAS C.P
JUDGE
okb/
2025:KER:83585
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2774/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT DATED
17.03.2023
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER DATED 19.04.2023
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION G.O.P
NO.74/93 PW & T, SRO.NO1239/93 DATED
30.07.1993
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1 ST
RESPONDENT DATED 03.07.2023
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R1(a) True copy of the Order dated 16.05.2023
2025:KER:83585
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 33880/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT OF THE 1ST
PETITIONER DATED 03.08.2023 VALID TILL
23.03.2024
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PRESENT PERMIT OF THE 2ND
PETITIONER DATED 08.09.2023 VALID TILL
05.01.2024
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION G.O.P
NO.74/93 PW&T DATED 30.07.1993
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE
AGENDA OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
MEETING DATED 03.07.2023 RELATING TO ITEM
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE
DECISION IN THE ABOVE ITEMS 2,4,5,22 AND 23
BY WAY OF MINUTES NOW PUBLISHED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED, 03.07.2023
