High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-03-22Dismissed

Abdul Basheer v Regional Transport Authority Kozhikode and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).2393/2021(Y)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Sunil Thomas
Judgment Date: 2021-03-22
Court Decision / Holding: Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Abdul Basheer

Respondents

Regional Transport Authority Kozhikode
The Secretary Regional Transport Authority, Kozhikode
Raheel Rubi Nivas
The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Shri P. Deepak

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. Sri Stalin Peter Davis

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, Abdul Basheer, is a stage carriage operator challenging orders relating to renewal of a permit and a temporary permit on a lapsed route in Kerala. The third respondent, Raheel Rubi Nivas, held permit KL-07-AF-2972 on Beypore–Medical College; the permit expired on 23 December 2017 and the vehicle was withdrawn in August 2016. No renewal was filed by that permit, and the petitioner applied on 26 November 2019 for a four‑month temporary permit to operate on KL‑08 AQ‑1999 in place of KL‑07‑AF‑2972. The Regional Transport Authority rejected Ext.P3; the State Transport Appellate Tribunal directed temporary permission for 20 days (Ext.P4) and later issued a temporary permit (Ext.P5). On 22 October 2020 a regular permit application to operate in the lapsed vacancy was filed, which the second respondent refused on 9 December 2020, citing a judgment in W.P(C).No.22976 of 2020 directing consideration of the third respondent’s renewal. The petitioner’s Ext.P10 objections were considered in a separate writ, W.P(C).No.27786 of 2020, with Ext.P11 directing an opportunity to be heard. The department issued temporary permits (Ext.P12 and Ext.P12(a)) pending renewal, but on 27 January 2021 the petitioner’s further temporary permit was refused and he was directed to vacate the route from 01 February 2021. The third respondent’s MVAA No.4/2021 and a STAT order, Ext.P15, validated a permit expired in 2017 for two months. The petitioner contends lack of hearing, non‑inclusion in MVAA proceedings, and violation of statutory provisions; the respondents rely on renewal provisions, saved permits, and retrospective validation under MV Act. The court, after considering the evidence and noting lack of timely delay-condonation, declined to interfere with Ext.P15. The writ petition is dismissed, though the petitioner may object in renewal proceedings.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 81(3)(v) of the Motor Vehicles ActSection 87(1)(d) of the Motor Vehicles ActSection 214(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that Ext.P11 directed the first respondent to afford an opportunity of hearing while considering renewal of the third respondent’s permit; however, he was neither heard nor informed about renewal proceedings and was not made a party to MVAA No. 4 of 2021. He submits that Ext.P15, the STAT order validating a permit that had expired on 23 December 2017, violates statutory provisions and due process. He asserts that delay-condonation and the renewal framework under section 81(3)(v) must be properly considered, and that proceedings and routes should be free from fraud or misrepresentation. The petitioner seeks a lawful hearing and proper application of mind in renewal and renewal-related orders, and asks the court to quash or modify the challenged orders.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that renewal remains maintainable under section 81(3)(v), and that the permit holder can apply for renewal after expiry with delay-condonation. They argue that saved permits govern the route and that temporary permits have been issued pending renewal in the public interest. They rely on section 214(2) to validate retroactive renewal, contend that the petition for regular permit is not maintainable due to route-overlap concerns, and point to decisions such as Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Baby P.P. and Ors. to justify their approach. They argue that Ext.P15 is legally permissible and that proper consideration was given to delay explanation and the genuineness of the renewal process.

Cited Precedents (10)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Kerala State Transport Corporation v. Baby P.P. and Ors.	2018(3) KHC 385	Mentioned Only	Cited to illustrate route-overlap concerns; not applied as binding authority in the final decision.
WA 2670/2017	W.A.No.2670 of 2017	Mentioned Only	Referenced as background; not expressly followed or distinguished.
OP(C).No.735/19	OP(C).No.735/19	Mentioned Only	Cited in context of related matters; not used to decide the issues here.
W.P(C).No.22976 of 2020	W.P(C).No.22976 of 2020	Mentioned Only	Judgment directed consideration of renewal for the third respondent; cited to contextualize the renewal proceedings.
W.P(C).No.27786 of 2020	W.P(C).No.27786 of 2020	Mentioned Only	Ext.P11 relates to this petition; current decision does not hinge on it.
W.P(C).No.35167 of 2019	W.P(C).No.35167 of 2019	Mentioned Only	Referenced in the context of similar relief; not binding.
2012 SCC Online Kerala 6368	2012 SCC Online Kerala 6368	Mentioned Only	Exhibited for background; not central to the ruling.
2015 KHC 356	2015 KHC 356	Mentioned Only	Exhibit reference; background material.
WA 62/2012	WA 62/2012	Mentioned Only	Referenced as background material.
Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Baby P.P. and Ors.	2018(3) KHC 385	Mentioned Only	Cited again to reflect the underlying dispute on route validity.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Abdul Basheer v Regional Transport Authority Kozhikode and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS** **MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1943** ## **WP(C).No.2393 OF 2021(Y)** ## **PETITIONER:** **ABDUL BASHEER AGED 55 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMED, PUNCHAPADAM, NADUVATTOM, NORTH BEYPORE, KOZHIKODE.** **BY ADV. SHRI.P.DEEPAK** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY KOZHIKODE, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE - 673620, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2 THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE - 673620. 3 RAHEEL RUBI NIVAS, AREEKKAD, PUTHUKUTTI PAADAM, KOZHIKODE - 673018.** - **4 THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 011. R3 BY ADV. SRI.STALIN PETER DAVIS** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SR.GP K.P HARISH** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-022021, THE COURT ON 22-03-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P(C).2393/2021 2 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner and the third respondent are stage carriage operators. The third respondent was the holder of a stage carriage permit in the Beypore-Medical College Route in relation to stage carriage No.KL-07-AF-2972. The period of the permit expired on 23.12.2017. Thereafter, the vehicle KL-07-AF-2972 was withdrawn in August 2016 and no application for renewal was filed before 23.12.2017, the date of expiry of the permit. In the meanwhile, the petitioner applied for temporary permit on 26.11.2019 for four months to stage carriage KL—08AQ-1999, in place of KL-07-AF-2972. This application was rejected on 16.06.2020 by Ext.P3 order stating that the regular permit expired on 23.12.2017 and at present, bus has no valid permit. This was challenged in M.V.A.A.No.121 of 2021 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and interim direction was passed to issue temporary permit for 20 days vide Ext.P4, dated 11.09.2020. Ext.P5 is the temporary permit issued for the period 20.10.2020 to 08.11.2020. On 22.10.2020, regular permit application to operate in the lapsed vacancy of KL-07-AF-2972 was filed. It was not accepted by the Secretary of RTA. M.V.A.A.No.121 of 2021 was disposed of on W.P(C).2393/2021 3 06.11.2020 directing the second respondent to reconsider the application of the petitioner for temporary permit in lapsed vacancy and till such time to issue temporary permit for 20 days. 2. On 09.12.2020, the temporary permit application was rejected on the ground that, this Court by judgment in W.P(C).No.22976 of 2020 dated 04.12.2020 had directed consideration of the third respondent's application for renewal of permit issued to the defaulted service of KL07-AF-2972, which had expired on 23.12.2017. The petitioner appeared in the above renewal proceeding and filed Ext.P10 objection. In a writ petition filed by the petitioner herein as W.P(C).No.27786 of 2020, this Court directed the first respondent to consider Ext.P10 objection while considering the application for renewal by the petitioner. The true copy of the judgment in W.P(C).No.27786 of 2020 is Ext.P11. On receipt of Ext.P11, the second respondent, notwithstanding the fact of rejection of the petitioner's earlier application for temporary permit by Ext.P8 order, issued a temporary permit to the petitioner valid for 20 days from 24.12.2020 to 12.01.2021. The above permit is Ext.P12. Thereafter, another temporary permit, Ext,.P12(a) was issued valid upto 01.02.2021. On 27.01.2021, the petitioner submitted an application for reissue of temporary permit to operate in continuation of Ext.P12 permit valid till 01.02.2021. Ext.P13 is the copy of the above application. However, it was informed by the second respondent that, W.P(C).2393/2021 4 his application for issue of temporary permit cannot be granted and no further temporary permit can be issued to him and he was directed to vacate the route from 01.02.2021 onwards. The reason stated was that, renewal of permit application filed by the third respondent was rejected by the first respondent, against which, third respondent had filed an appeal as M.V.A.A.No. 4 of 2021, in which, STAT had passed an order under section 214(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act validating for a period of two months the regular permit that had expired on 23.12.2017. 3. According to the petitioner, though by Ext.P11 judgment, it was directed that the petitioner shall be afforded an opportunity of being heard while considering the renewal of permit submitted by the third respondent, not only was the petitioner put on notice nor heard in the matter of application for renewal. He was not even informed about any proceeding. In the meanwhile, the third respondent had not made the petitioner herein a party in MVAA.No. 4 of 2021. In the meanwhile, STAT passed Ext.P15 order validating for a period of two months a permit that has expired as early as on 23.12.2017. According to the petitioner, this was in total violation of the Statute since the application for validating for a period of two months related to a permit that had already expired on 23.12.2017. Accordingly, Ext.P15 impugned order is challenged before this Court on the ground that the order was in violation of statutory provision. It was also alleged that, there was no W.P(C).2393/2021 5 proper application of mind. 4. The third respondent has appeared and filed a detailed counter affidavit along with the documents. Heard all the counsel. 5. According to the 3[rd] respondent, renewal of permit with a petition to condone the delay with sufficient reasons is maintainable under section 81(3)(v) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Only the permit holder can apply for renewal of the permit even after the expiry of the period. The only restriction was that, there shall be a petition to condone the delay in submitting the application. The authority is empowered to condone the delay, irrespective of the number of days. The petitioner had sought renewal from 23.12.2017 to 5 years, i.e, 22.12.2022. The third respondent's permit was in operation prior to 2009 and it was a saved permit by Ext.R3(a) notification dated 14[th] September 2020. Only a saved permit can operate covering the notified sector. The permit issued to the petitioner in 1997 was produced as Ext..R3(b). Renewal pending temporary permit is the right of the permit holder under section 87(1)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, if the delay is properly explained. Renewal, if granted, will be retrospective in effect from the date of expiry, that is why section 214(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act is attracted. According to the third respondent, there is a scheme violation of 5.3 kms on the notified route. The petitioner's application for regular permit was not maintainable W.P(C).2393/2021 6 since the route exceeded the permissible limit of overlapping. The petitioner had obtained temporary permit by committing fraud and misrepresentation, on a notified route from Bank Junction to Vattakinar, for about 5.3kms, which is in violation of the decision in **Kerala State** **Road Transport Corporation v. Baby P.P. and Ors. (2018(3) KHC 385** ). The contention set up by the petitioner is not sustainable. 6. To substantiate the case of the third respondent, he relied on the decision reported in **Kerala State Road Transport Corporation's case (supra)** , reported judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No. 2670 of 2017 and connected cases and this Court's judgment in O.P(C).No.735 of 2019. He also relied on the judgment in W.P(C).No.35167 of 2019. 7. A reply affidavit was also filed by the petitioner traversing the various allegations raised in the counter affidavit. 8. It seems that the third respondent was the holder of the permit for a long time. It went out of use and remained so, for a pretty long time. It is true that, divergent orders are obtained by both sides in proceedings initiated by each side without bringing the other side in the party array. Probably, parallel proceedings were initiated by both sides, without making the contesting party a party to the proceeding resulted in this peculiar situation. It is true that, there is nothing on record to W.P(C).2393/2021 7 show that the delay condonation application was filed and delay was explained. Evidently, in the light of the fact that the temporary permit application was granted to the third respondent pending the proceeding for renewal of the permit itself indicates that the authority must have been satisfied about the genuineness of the delay and accordingly, it was issued. I find no ground to interfere with Ext.P15 order. 9. Having considered the entire facts, I find that the case set up by the petitioner cannot have a better chance than that raised by the third respondent. This will not preclude the petitioner from raising objection before the authority against renewal application. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. **Sd/-** **SUNIL THOMAS** Sbna **JUDGE** W.P(C).2393/2021 8 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** |**EXHIBIT P1**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN**| |---|---| ||**2012 SCC ONLINE KERALA 6368 (2012(2)**| ||**K.L.T.397.**| |**EXHIBIT P2**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE RC STATUS OF KL-07-AF-**| ||**2972.**| |**EXHIBIT P3**|**A TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE SECOND**| ||**RESPONDENT DATED 16.06.2020.**| |**EXHIBIT P4**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED**| ||**11.09.2020 IN MP 489/2020 N,MVAA NO.121 OF**| ||**2020 OF THE STAT, EKM.**| |**EXHIBIT P5**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT ISSUED**| ||**TO THE PETITIONER VALID TILL 08.11.2020.**| |**EXHIBIT P6**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REGULAR**| ||**PERMIT DATED 22.10.2020.**| |**EXHIBIT P7**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED**| ||**06.11.2020 IN MVAA NO.121 OF 2020.**| |**EXHIBIT P8**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE**| ||**SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 04.12.2020.**| |**EXHIBIT P9**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED**| ||**28.10.2020 IN WPC NO.22976 OF 2020.**| |**EXHIBIT P10**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED**| ||**10.12.2020 ADDRESSED TO THE FOURTH**| ||**RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P11**|**A TRUE COPY JUDGMENT DATED 15.12.2020 THIS**| ||**HON'BLE COURT WAS PLEASED TO DISPOSE OF WPC**| ||**NO.27786 OF 2020.**| |**EXHIBIT P12**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT VALID**| ||**TILL 12.01.2021.**| |**EXHIBIT P12(a)**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT VALID**| ||**TILL 01.02.2021.**| W.P(C).2393/2021 9 **EXHIBIT P13** **A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY PERMIT FILED ON 27.01.2021.** **EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 25.11.2020.** **EXHIBIT P15** **A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.01.2021 IN MP NO.14/21 IN MVAA NO.4/2021 OF THE STAT, ERNAKULAM.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R3(A) A TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO.B1/13/2016/TRAN DATED 14TH SEPTEMBER 2020** **EXHIBIT R3(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE 3[rd] RESPONDENTS PERMIT, WHICH WAS ISSUED IN 1997** **EXHIBIT R3(C) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION AGENDA DATED 03.02.2021, ANOTHER PERMIT IS GOING TO BE TRANSFERRED TO THE 4[th] RESPONDENT ON THE ROUTE FEROKE-MEECHANDA-MEDICAL COLLEGE IN RESPECT OF VEHICLE KL-10/T 6745** **EXHIBIT R3(D) A TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2018(3) KHC 385 (PARAGRAPH 37 AND 38) EXHIBIT R3(E) A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA 2670/2017 DATED 21.12.2017 (PARAGRAPH 5) EXHIBIT R3(F) A TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2015KHC356 EXHIBIT R3(G) A TRUE COPY IN JUDGMENT OPC 735/19 DATED 27.01.2020 EXHIBIT R3(H) A TRUE COPY OF WA 62/2012 DATED 24.01.2012**