Bibin T. Alappat v. The Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad and others

O.P.(C) No.735/2019 1 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS** **MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 7TH MAGHA, 1941** ## **OP(C).No.735 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MVAA 263/2018 OF S.T.A.TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **BIBIN.T.ALAPPAT AGED 35 YEARS S/O.THOMAS, ALAPATT HOUSE, PURANATTUKARA.P.O.,THRISSUR.** **BY ADV. SRI.M.JITHESH MENON** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD PALAKKAD, PIN-678001.** - **2 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD, PIN-678001.** - **3 SRI.A.KUMAR, S/O.ANGAMUTHU CHETTIAR, T.B.ROAD, VADAKKANCHERY, PALAKKAD, PIN-678683.** - **4 THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, PALAKKAD, PIN-678001.** - **5 SOLOMON.C.M CHEMMANAM HOUYSE, CHENNAIPPARA.P.O., THRISSUR, PIN680653.** - **6 THE STATE TRASNPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682011.** - **R3 BY ADV. SRI.STALIN PETER DAVIS R4 BY SRI.P.C.CHACKO, SC, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. SPL.GOVT.PLEADER(MV) SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR** **THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29.08.2020, THE COURT ON 27/1/2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** O.P.(C) No.735/2019 2 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Dated this the 27th day of January 2020** Petitioner claims to be a stage carriage operator conducting service in the route Vadakkencery - Palakkad - Guruvayoor. According to him, being a existing operator, he has got a right to point out any violation of the statutory provisions contained in the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules framed there under. The third respondent was the holder of a regular permit to operate on the inter district route Perinthalmanna - Ayyanthole as a fast passenger service in respect of Stage carriage bearing No.KL-49/8686 valid till 3/5/2014. Much before the expiry of the regular permit, the third respondent submitted an application for issuance of a clearance certificate by releasing the vehicle from the permit and by keeping the permit under suspended animation. It was granted by the order of State Transport Appellate Authority(STAT) subject to the condition that the vehicle shall be replaced by a suitable vehicle within a period of four months. O.P.(C) No.735/2019 3 Petitioner alleged that the 3[rd] respondent did not replace the vehicle by a suitable vehicle within the stipulated time as directed. While so, the third respondent applied for a renewal on 7/4/2014. According to the petitioner, permit was already issued with a clearance certificate and taken away from the permit and the application submitted by the third respondent for renewal was without specifying the vehicle. The Hon'ble High court in _**Usman v. Regional Transport Authority (2015 [4] KLT 25)**_ as confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court _**Jaffer v. Usman (2015 [4] KLT 590)**_ had held that an application for renewal without specifying the vehicle was not maintainable and there cannot be a renewal . Therefore, fresh application submitted by the 3[rd] respondent for renewal was not maintainable, it was contended. 2. The application for renewal was considered by the first respondent on 12/8/2014 and was adjourned in the light of G.O.[P} No.73/2013/Tran dated 16/7/2013 by which the Government had directed not to issue fresh permit/renewal of permit to upper class stage carriages of the private sector. However, subsequently, another notification was issued as G.O.[P} No.45/2015, by which existing super class services were permitted to be operated as limited stop ordinary service. However, for availing the benefit, the permit holders have to file applications for renewal as limited stop ordinary service and for conversion of super class service into limited stop ordinary O.P.(C) No.735/2019 4 service. While so, another notification G.O.[P]8/2017 was issued by which permits granted to the private sector were permitted to operate the service as limited stop ordinary service with a maximum distance prescribed under the Motor Vehicles Rules as 143 kms. 3. Thereafter, the 3[rd] respondent submitted an application for temporary permit by offering another vehicle bearing No. KL-9/AK6465 taken on lease. The second respondent issued a letter declining to grant permit. It was challenged by the third respondent in MVAA No.10/2018 before the STAT. The STAT allowed the appeal by Ext.P5 judgment setting aside the above letter and directed RTA to consider the request of the third respondent to operate as ordinary limited stop service. Petitioner, at that point of time, filed a detailed objection objecting to the consideration of the application for temporary permit. He had also approached this court by filing W.P.(C) No.13793/2018. This court by an interim order directed the second respondent to consider the objection filed by the petitioner herein also. In compliance with ExtP5 judgment of the STAT, the application was considered by the first respondent on 29/5/2018. By a detailed order, the authority cancelled the regular permit and the third respondent was directed to surrender the original permit by Ext.P6 order. That order was challenged by the third respondent by filing MVAA No.263/2018. The STAT allowed the appeal by order dated 11/1/2015 by setting O.P.(C) No.735/2019 5 aside the impugned order and directed the first respondent to reconsider the renewal application on merits. This is under challenge in the above proceedings. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the contesting respondents . The contesting respondents have filed a detailed counter traversing the various allegations in the original petitioner and a reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. 5. According to the petitioner, the impugned order is nonest and the court below has not considered the issues involved and passed order without proper application of mind. The third respondent was not entitled for any relief and the STAT went wrong in interfering with the well considered order of the authority and in exercising the power of remand. The Appellate Authority failed to notice the decision of the Division Bench in Jaffer's case, it was contended. Answering it, the learned counsel for the third respondent challenged the locus standi of the petitioner by relying on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in _**W.A.No.62/2012**_ (Quilon District Private Bus Operators' Association v/ The RTA and others). He also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in _**Mithilesh Garg v. Union of India and Others ( AIR 1992 Supreme Court 443)**_ , wherein it was held that the object of granting of permit to operators was to encourage competition and to eliminate corruption. He relied on the decision in _**Rajan v. Regional**_ O.P.(C) No.735/2019 6 _**Transport Authority(2014 [2] KLT 387)**_ to contend that the permit holder need not be the registered owner of the vehicle. 6. It is seen that Ext.P4 was rejected on the ground that the vehicle was not replaced with a suitable stage carriage in accordance with the STAT order. Though show cause notice was issued under section 86 of the MV Act, it was not replied and the permit was inoperative. The right to operate upper class was reserved exclusively for STAT undertaking. It was also reported that the KL-09-AK-6465 proposed by the third respondent was owned by one Saji Thomas. 7. The above order was challenged in MVAA No.10/2918, which was allowed by Ext.P5 judgment. The appeal was allowed by the STAT in the light of the G.O.(P).8/2017/Trans dated 23/3/2017. The authority was directed to consider the request of the third respondent herein to permit him to operate as limited stop, in the light of the above Government Order. This order was not challenged by the petitioner herein. 8. Evidently, the authority was bound to consider the request of the petitioner in the light of the G.O.(P)8/2017/Trans, as directed by the STAT. Ext.P6 is the order passed by the RTA pursuant to Ext.P5. It was held by the authority that even though as per G.O(P)8/2017/Trans., dated 23/3/2017, permit was granted on 14/7/2009, it was permitted to be operated as ordinary or ordinary O.P.(C) No.735/2019 7 limited stop service with maximum time prescribed under Rule 2 (oa) of Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules. Permit holder was not eligible since permit was operative since 10/5/2013 even before G.O.(P) No.73/2013/Tran. Hence, the regular stage carriage permit No.9/49/2003 was cancelled, By Ext.P8 judgment, the STAT held that the request of the appellant to permit him to operate as an ordinary limited stop service was not considered by the RTA, in spite of the specific direction by the STAT. Agenda in the order dated 29/5/2018 was to reconsider the application for renewal. Without passing an order on the renewal application, the permit itself has cancelled by the first respondent. The question whether the permit of the appellant was liable to be cancelled or not was not an issue in the above meeting. Further, STAT held that no notice was given to the appellant before cancelling his permit. Consequently, the RTA was directed to reconsider the application for renewal of permit on merits in the light of the observations made in the judgment in MVAA No.10/2018 dated 3/2/2018. 9 Evidently, by Ext.P5 order, the RTA was directed to consider the request. The order of the STAT was clear and catagoric. Evidently, by Ext.P7 order, the direction of the STAT was not complied with. It seems that Ext.P6 order was virtually to overreach the order of the STAT in MVAA No.10/2018. O.P.(C) No.735/2019 8 Having considered the above, I find no illegality in Ext.P8 order of the STAT. There is no scope for any interference. It is for the RTA, Palakkad to consider the issue in the light of the observations made in Ext.P5 and Ext.P8 Judgments of the STAT. The original petition fails and is dismissed. Sd/- **SUNIL THOMAS** dpk **JUDGE** O.P.(C) No.735/2019 9 ## **APPENDIX** ## Pet **iIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR STAGE CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 19/04/2016.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.45/2015/TRANS DATED 20/08/2015. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.G.O. (P)8/2017 DATED 23/03/2017.** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 8/1/2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT RENDERED BY THE HON'BLE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN MVAA NO.10/2018 DATED 3/2/2018** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/05/2018.** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM MVAA NO.263/2018(WITHOUT EXHIBITS)** - **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT RENDERED BY THE HON'BLE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN MVAA NO.263/2018 DATED 11/1/2019.** RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R3(A): COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2018 (4) KLJ 145) EXT.R3(B): COPY OF THE RERLEVANT PORTION AGENDA DATED 1/11/2018.