Aswathi Kumar v. Regional Transport Authority, Thiruvananthapuram and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2017/11TH MAGHA, 1938** **WP(C).No. 41111 of 2016 (L) ---------------------------** **PETITIONER:** - **-----------** **ASWATHI KUMAR, KAMALALAYAM, CHATHAMPARA, THOTTAKADU.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS** **RESPONDENT(S):** - **--------------** **1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-695001.** **2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** **3. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANGING DIRECTOR-695001.** **4. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ( GENERAL), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** **5. THE SECRETARY, TAXI DRIVERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, NO.T 412, KARUKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** - **R1, R2 & R4 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **R3 BY SRI.P.C.CHACKO, SC R5 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **mbr/** ## **WP(C).No. 41111 of 2016 (L) ----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT-P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT NO.C13/10/T/95 VALID FROM 30/06/1995 TO 29.6.2000.** - **EXHIBIT-P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT ISSUED TO STAGE CARRIAGE NO.KL 01/D 9947 ON 18/04/2005.** - **EXHIBIT-P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF THE PERMIT DATED 19/04/2009.** - **EXHIBIT-P4 : TRUE COPY OF NO-OBJECTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO STAGE CARRIAGE NO.KL 01/AQ 7878.** - **EXHIBIT-P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 23/06/2010.** - **EXHIBIT-P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN M.V.A.A. NO.309/2010 DATED 21/06/2011.** - **EXHIBIT-P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DATED 10/02/2012 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL.** - **EXHIBIT-P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO.26232/2012 DATED 15.11.2015.** - **EXHIBIT-P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN R.P.NO.1/2016 IN M.V.A.A. NO.309/2010 DATED 25/11/2016.** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **mbr/** ## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.** ## **= = = = = = = = = = = = =** ## **WP.(C).No.41111 of 2016-L.** ## **= = = = = = = = = = = = =** Dated this the 31[st] day of January, 2017. ## **J U D G M E N T** Exts.P6 and P9 orders of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal are under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The facts relevant are the following: The fifth respondent Co-operative Society was holding a regular permit to operate a stage carriage service within Thiruvananthapuram city limits. The validity of the said permit expired on 30.6.2000. The fifth respondent, therefore, preferred an application for renewal of the permit for the period upto 29.06.2005. Orders have not been passed on the said application for renewal till 2005. When the period in respect of which renewal was sought has also expired, the fifth respondent preferred another application for renewal of the permit for the period up to 29.06.2010. Orders are not been passed on the said application also till 2010. Consequently, when the period in respect of which renewal was **WP.(C).No.41111/2016-L.** 2 sought by the second application has expired, the fifth respondent preferred one more application for renewal of the permit for the period upto 29.06.2015. In the meanwhile, the fifth respondent has also preferred an application for replacement of the vehicle in respect of which the permit has been granted. The applications preferred by the fifth respondent as referred to above were rejected by the Regional Transport Authority as per Ext.P5 order on 23.06.2010 holding that they have not produced the current no objection certificate from the financier of the vehicle. The fifth respondent challenged Ext.P5 order before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in M.V.A.A.No.309 of 2010 and the Tribunal allowed the appeal and directed the Regional Transport Authority to grant the renewal as also the replacement sought by the fifth respondent. Ext.P6 is the judgement rendered by the Tribunal in this connection on 21.06.2011. The petitioner is aspiring to operate a stage carriage service within Thiruvananthapuram city limits. According to the petitioner, he had objected the applications preferred by the fifth respondent for renewal of the permit as also for replacement of the vehicle **WP.(C).No.41111/2016-L.** 3 and as such, he should have been made a party in the appeal preferred before the Tribunal. In other words, according to the petitioner, Ext.P6 judgement is bad in so far as the same was obtained behind the back of the petitioner. He therefore preferred an application seeking review of Ext.P6 judgment. While the application for review was pending, the petitioner challenged Ext.P6 judgment before this Court in WP.(C).No.26232 of 2012 alleging that the Tribunal is not entertaining the review application taking the view that the same is not maintainable. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court as per Ext.P8 judgment directing the Tribunal to consider the review application including its maintainability. Pursuant to Ext.P8 judgment, Ext.P9 order has been passed by the Tribunal holding that the review application is not maintainable. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the fifth respondent as also the learned Government Pleader. 4. It is trite that the power of review cannot be exercised by a Tribunal unless it is conferred on it by the statute. ## **WP.(C).No.41111/2016-L.** **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** Admittedly, the Motor Vehicles Act does not confer on the Tribunal a power to review its decisions expressly or by necessary implication. On the other hand, the provisions in the said statute impliedly excludes the Tribunal from exercising the power of review by providing that the decisions of the Tribunal in appeals preferred under section 89 of the statute shall be final. The view taken by the Tribunal that the review petition preferred by the petitioner is not maintainable is, therefore, in order. 5. Coming to the merits of the case, even persons who are holding permits to operate service within the city limits are not entitled to challenge an order in the nature of Ext.P6 on the ground that the same would prejudicially affect their service. In matters like this, existing operators can only point out the statutory violations, if any, in the matter.[See **Ratheesh v. Regional Transport Authority** (2015(1) KLT 248)]. The petitioner is not even an operator of service. He only aspires to obtain a permit to operate a stage carriage service. If only the petitioner obtains a permit to operate a service within the city limits, he would be affected by the impugned order. The **WP.(C).No.41111/2016-L.** 5 petitioner may or may not obtain a permit. Such persons can never be considered as persons affected by the orders in the nature of one impugned in the writ petition so as to justify the approach to this Court under article 226 of the Constitution. On evaluation the materials, I have no doubt that the petitioner is a tool at the hands of a person who does not want to show his face before this Court in a matter like this. The writ petition, therefore, is not maintainable. Be that as it may, the main ground on which Ext.P6 order is attacked on merits is that the fifth respondent has not been granted no objection certificate by the financier for their vehicle for which the renewal is applied for by them. According to the petitioner, in the light of Section 51 (8) of the Motor Vehicles Act, no objection certificate of the financier is mandatory for the competent authority to consider applications for renewal of permits. A combined reading of the provisions contained in Sections 51(8) and 51(9) of the Act would indicate beyond doubt that even in a case where the financier has refused to issue no objection certificate, the competent authority under the Act is empowered to renew **WP.(C).No.41111/2016-L.** 6 permits, if circumstances warrant. The writ petition, in the circumstances, is devoid of merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. _**Sd/-**_ **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.** _**Kvs/-**_ _**// true copy //**_