High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition allowed
Babu O.V. and others v. State of Kerala and others
Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 18155 of 2016 (T)
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- Shaji P. Chaly
- Judgment Date
- 2016-06-01
- Court Decision / Holding
- Writ petition is allowed. Petitioners are at liberty to approach respondents 2 and 3 seeking variation of permits with respect to halting station, parking and picking up passengers. If such applications are filed within three weeks from today, respondents 2 and 3 shall decide within a further period of one month after providing an opportunity of hearing, in accordance with the principles discussed and the directions contained herein.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petition allowed
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Babu O.V., S/o Sulochana O.V., Marakkadappuram, Ozhinavalappu P.O., Kanhangad, Kasaragod District
- Sainuddin L.K., S/o. Mammu, Nhanikadavu, Ozhinavalappu P.O., Kasaragod District
- Unas C.H., S/o. Assiya, Ballakadappuram, Kanhangad P.O., Kasaragod District
- Firoz H., S/o. Sheik Fakeer Sahib, Quarters, Puthiyakotta, Kanhangad, Kasaragod District
- Ratheesh P.P., S/o. Narayanan P.P., Arai, Kanhangad South P.O., Kasaragod District
- Kurumuthean N., S/o. Kunhiraman K., Gokulam Padnekad P.O., Hosdurg, Kasaragod District
- Premrajesh V.V., S/o. Kunhikannan V.V., Vazhavalappil House, Padnekad P.O., Kasaragod District
- Haris N.P., S/o. Aboobacker Haji, Ozhinavappu P.O., Kanhangad, Kasaragod District
- Satheesh Kumar G., S/o. Jalendran P., Shamzeer Quarters, Vadakaramukku, P.O. Kanhangad, Kasaragod District
- T.K.Moidheen, S/o. Abdulla P., Thalakkel, Thekkedam, Padnekad, Kasaragod District
- Abdul Nazar M., S/o. Muhammed Kunhi, Marakkadapuram, Ozhinavalappu P.O., Kanhangad, Kasaragod District
- Muqthar Ahammed, S/o. Basheer Ahammed, Hazeena Quarters, Kushalnagar, Kanhangad P.O., Kasaragod District
- Zubair A.S., Abdulla, Aivyil House, Kanhangad P.O., Kasaragod District
- Balakrishnan, S/o.Koran, Puthiyapurayil, Ozhinjavallappu P.O., Kasaragod District
- Abdul Raheem P., S/o. Ibrahim T.P., Ramsheed Manzil, Punjavi, Ozhinjavallapppu P.O., Kanhangad, Kasaragod District
- Anitha M., Secretary, Hosdurg Taluk Autorikshaw Drivers Co-op Society, KanHangad
Respondents
- STATE OF KERALA, represented by its Secretary, Motor Vehicles Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695 001
- THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 121
- THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KANHANGAD, KASARGOD DISTRICT-671 121, represented by its Secretary
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Suresh Kumar Kodoth
- • K.P. Antony Binu
Counsels for Respondents
- • SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA
Case Synopsis & Summary
This writ petition challenges the restrictive conditions imposed on contract carriage permits for auto-rickshaws operating in Kasaragod district, particularly within the Kanhangad municipal town. The petitioners, registered auto-owners including Babu O.V. and a co-operative secretary among others, contend that the permits Exts.P17 to P32 attach territorial limitations that unnecessarily fetter their right to operate within the town area, thereby affecting their livelihood. They allege these restrictions are illegal and unsustainable under the Motor Vehicles Act. The petition cites a prior decision, Rajesh v. Secretary, RTA (2014(3) KLT 341), which held that the statutory authorities do not possess power under the MV Act to impose such permit conditions and that Section 74(3)(a) reserves the power to issue area-based restrictions to the State Government. The respondents include the State of Kerala, the Regional Transport Officer (Kanhangad), and the Regional Transport Authority (Kanhangad). The court frames the core issue: whether the statutory authorities can incorporate stipulations restricting permit holders’ operations within the city limits. After hearing submissions, the court relies on the cited judgments to emphasize that permit restrictions should be regulated by the State Government, not by RTA/other authorities. Ultimately, the petition is allowed with directions for variation of permits, enabling petitioners to apply for changes in halting stations, parking and passenger pick-up, with opportunity for hearing, to be decided within prescribed timeframes.
Provisions of Law Cited
Motor Vehicles Act, Section 74(3)(a)
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners argued that the conditions embedded in the permits restricting operations within the city limits are illegal and constitute an unjust fetter on their right to operate vehicles in the town area. They rely on the principle laid down in Rajesh v. Secretary, RTA (2014(3) KLT 341) to contend that the Motor Vehicles Act does not authorize imposition of such restrictions, with Section 74(3)(a) reserving the power to issue area-based restrictions to the State Government; they seek quashing of Exts.P17 to P32 and, in the alternative, variation of permits.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents contended that regulatory authorities have the power to issue permits with conditions that control where and how vehicles operate within municipal limits and that any variation would require appropriate legal process; the dispute centers on the scope of authority under the MV Act and the role of the State Government in prescribing area-based restrictions.
Cited Precedents (1)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rajesh v. Secretary, RTA | 2014(3) KLT 341 | Positive | Cited to support the proposition that MV Act authorities do not have power to impose restrictive permit conditions; the principle guides the court to consider variation under state authority only after due process. |
Diagnostic Tool
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 Babu O.V. and others v. State of Kerala 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 SHAJI P.CHALY**
## **WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2016/11TH JYAISHTA, 1938**
## **WP(C).No. 18155 of 2016 (T)**
**-------------------------------------------**
**PETITIONER(S) : ---------------------------**
**1. BABU O.V., S/O.SULOCHANA O.V., MARAKKADAPPURAM, OZHINAVALAPPU P.O., KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.**
**2. SAINUDDIN L.K.**
- **S/O. MAMMU, NHANIKKADAVU, OZHINAVALAPPU P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT.**
**3. UNAS C.H.,**
- **S/O. ASSIYA, BALLAKADAPPURAM, KANHANGAD P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT.**
**4. FIROZ H.,**
- **S/O. SHEIK FAKEER SAHIB, QUARTERS, PUTHIYAKOTTA, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.**
**5. RATHEESH P.P.,**
- **S/O. NARAYANAN P.P., ARAI, KANHANGAD SOUTH P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT.**
**6. KUMARAN N.,**
- **S/O. KUNHIRAMAN K., GOKULAM PADNEKKAD P.O., HOSDURG, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.**
**7. PREMRAJESH V.V., S/O. KUNHIKANNAN V.V.,**
- **VAZHAVALAPPIL HOUSE, PADNEKKAD P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT.**
**8. HARIS N.P.,**
- **S/O. ABOOBACKER HAJI, OZHINHAVAPPU P.O., KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.**
**9. SATHEESH KUMAR G.,**
- **S/O. JALENDRAN P., SHAMZEER QUARTERS, VADAKARAMUKKU, P.O. KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.**
**..2/-**
**..2..**
**WP(C).No. 18155 of 2016 (T)**
**-------------------------------------------**
**10. T.K.MOIDEEN,**
- **S/O. ABDULLA P., THALAKKEL, THEKKEDAM, PADNEKKAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.**
**11. ABDUL NAZAR M., S/O. MUHAMMED KUNHI, MARAKKADAPURAM, OZHINAVALAPPU P.O., KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.**
**12. MUQTHAR AHAMMED, S/O. BASHER AHAMMED, HAZEENA QUARTERS, KUSHALNAGAR, KANHANGAD P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT.**
**13. ZUBAIR A.S.**
- **ABDULLA, AVIYIL HOUSE, KANHANGAD P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT.**
**14. BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.KORAN, PUTHIYAPURAYIL, OZHINJAVALAPPU P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT.**
**15. ABDUL RAHEEM P., S/O. IBRAHIM T.P., RAMSHEED MANZHIL, PUNJAVI, OZHINJAVLAPPU P.O., KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.**
**16. ANITHA M., SECRETARY, HOSDURG TALUK AUTORIKSHAW DRIVERS CO-OP SOCIETY, C-374, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.**
## **BY ADVS.SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH SRI.K.P.ANTONY BINU**
## **RESPONDENT(S) :**
**------------------------------**
**1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MOTOR VEHICLES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.**
**2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 121.**
**3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KANHANGAD, KASARGOD DISTRICT-671 121, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.**
## **BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA**
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
Msd.
## **WP(C).No. 18155 of 2016 (T)**
## **-------------------------------------------**
## **APPENDIX**
## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :**
- **P1 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-F-5755.**
- **P2 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-C-752.**
- **P3 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-C-9074.**
- **P4 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-B-516.**
- **P5 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-A-9132.**
- **P6 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-B-2446.**
- **P7 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-D-9533.**
- **P8 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-5550.**
- **P9 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-14-C-8837.**
- **P10 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60--B-5311.**
- **P11 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-E-508.**
- **P12 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-14-E-8407.**
- **P13 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-F-1330.**
- **P14 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-A-2883.**
- **P15 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-B-6605.**
- **P16 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-K-3439.**
- **P17 TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 1ST PETITIONER.**
- **P18 TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 2ND PETITIONER.**
- **P19 TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 3RD PETITIONER.**
**WP(C).No. 18155 of 2016 (T)**
**-------------------------------------------**
**P20 TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 4TH PETITIONER. P21 TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 5TH PETITIONER. P22 TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 6TH PETITIONER. P23 TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 7TH PETITIONER. P24 TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 8TH PETITIONER. P25 TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 9TH PETITIONER. P26 TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 10TH PETITIONER. P27 TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 11TH PETITIONER. P28 TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 12TH PETITIONER. P29 TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 13TH PETITIONER. P30 TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 14TH PETITIONER. P31 TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 15TH PETITIONER. P32 TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 16TH PETITIONER. P33 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 28-10-2015 IN W.P(C).NO.31993/2015.**
## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :**
## **NIL**
**//TRUE COPY//**
Msd.
**P.A.TO JUDGE.**
## **SHAJI P. CHALY, J.**
----------------------------------------------- **W.P.(C). No.18155 of 2016 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 1[st] day of June, 2016**
## **JUDGMENT**
This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to quash restrictive conditions with respect to parking and picking passengers in Exts.P17 to P32 contract carriage permits and for other related reliefs.
2. Brief facts for the disposal of the writ petition are that petitioners are registered owners of autorickshaws in Kasaragod District on valid permits. Petitioners 1 to 15 are permanently residing in the area in and around Kanhangad Municipal town and the 16[th] petitioner is the Secretary of the Co-operative Society for the autorickshaw drivers. Petitioners applied for permit to operate their autorickshaws in the town area to earn their livelihood. But when permits were issued, the same contained stipulation restricting operations within the city limits. It is thus aggrieved by the conditions imposed in their respective permits, evident from Exts.P17 to P32, petitioners have
W.P.(C). No.18155 of 2016
2
approached this court. Petitioners are owners of autorickshaws bearing Nos.KL-60-F-5755, KL-60-C-752, KL-60-C-9074, KL-60-B 516, Kl-60-A-9132, KL-60-B-2446, KL-60-D-9533, KL-60-5550, KL-14-C-8837, KL-60-B-5311, KL-60-E-508, Kl-14E-8407, KL-60F-1330, KL-60-A-2883, KL-60-B-6605 and KL-60-K-3439. It is the contention of the petitioners that the conditions incorporated in the permits besides being illegal, create unnecessary fetters on the right of the petitioners to operate their vehicles in the town area.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned Government Pleader.
4. Having heard the rival submissions, perusal of pleadings and records, I am of the considered opinion that the issue to be considered in this case is whether the respondent statutory authorities are vested with power to incorporate the stipulations in the permits by restricting the operations of the vehicles owned by the petitioners within the city limits. A learned Single Judge of this court had occasion to consider the said issue in the judgment in **Rajesh v. Secretary, RTA** [2014(3) KLT 341] and
W.P.(C). No.18155 of 2016
3
held that the respondent statutory authorities are not having power under the Motor Vehicles Act to impose conditions restricting permits and by virtue of Section 74 (3) (a) only State Government is empowered to issue notification limiting issuance of permits with reference to the area. Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioners that the conditions imposed in Exts.P17 to P32 permits by virtue of the legal propositions laid down by this court in the decision cited supra are illegal and unsustainable.
In the light of the judgments referred by this court by laying down the principle, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners are at liberty to approach the competent among respondents 2 and 3 seeking variation of permits with respect to the halting station, parking and picking passengers. If such applications are filed by the petitioners within a period of three weeks from today, respondents 2 and 3 shall take a decision on the same within a further period of one month thereafter, taking into account the legal principles laid down by this court in the judgment cited supra and the directions contained herein, after
W.P.(C). No.18155 of 2016 4
providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
Writ petition is allowed.
Sd/- **SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE**
smv 02.06.2016