High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2014-03-21Writ petition allowed; directions to consider r...

C. Manoj Kumar v. Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam & Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 6347 of 2014 (P)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Vinod Chandran
Judgment Date: 2014-03-21
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition allowed. The RTA is directed to consider afresh the renewal and replacement applications in accordance with law and in light of the cited precedents within three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. The temporary permit, if pending, should be issued within one week of receipt of certified copy. The petitioner shall produce a certified copy of this judgment and a copy of the writ petition before the RTA. There is no order as to costs.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed; directions to consider renewal and replacement afresh within three weeks; temporary permit to be issued within one week if applicable; no costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

C. Manoj Kumar

Respondents

Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam
Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri P. Deepak

Counsels for Respondents

• Govt. Pleader SMT. R. REMA

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition concerns a regular permit holder for the Punaloor–Ernakulam route who sought renewal of his permit and replacement of a vehicle under a lease. The petitioner had obtained concurrence for renewal from sister RTAs (Kollam, Pathanamthitta, Ernakulam) as evidenced by Ext.P2 series, and the vehicle was leased (Ext.P4) with a replacement request (Ext.P5). The applicant also sought a temporary permit under Section 87(1)(d) (Ext.P6). Following a court directive in Ext.P7, the renewal and replacement applications were considered together by the RTA but were rejected by Ext.P8 on two grounds: (i) that replacement cannot be considered in light of a prior 2006 KLT 1013(FB) decision since replacement was not sought during the vacancy of the regular permit, and (ii) the vehicle was not owned by the petitioner. The court notes that it cannot locate a Full Bench decision at 2006 KLT 1013(FB) and scrutinizes Aysha v. RTA, Kasaragod (2006(3) KLT 1013) but finds that proposition not applicable to the instant issue. It relies on Raveendran v. RTO, Kannur (1995(1) KLT 126), to emphasize that possession of a vehicle suffices for operation under a valid permit, not ownership. It also cites Ext.P9 (W.P.(C) No. 9012/2007) as supporting the entitlement to replacement even when renewal is pending. Accordingly, the two grounds for rejection are set aside and the RTA is directed to re-consider the renewal and replacement afresh in accordance with law and the cited precedents. The petitioner is directed to produce a certified copy of this judgment in court, and a temporary permit must be considered and issued within a week of receiving such copy. Writ petition allowed: renewal and replacement to be decided within three weeks of certified copy; no costs.

Provisions of Law Cited

87(1)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that renewal and replacement applications should be considered afresh by the RTA in light of the prior concurrence, and that rejection grounds based on a 2006 decision and on non-ownership of the vehicle are not sustainable. Citing Aysha v. RTA Kasaragod, the petitioner argues that non-availability of a vehicle cannot cancel a permit; however, the court distinguishes this proposition as inapplicable to the present facts. The decision in Raveendran v. RTO, Kannur is relied upon to emphasize that possession suffices for operation under a valid permit, even without sole ownership. The Ext.P9 W.P.(C) 9012/2007 decision is cited to show that replacement may be allowed even when renewal is pending.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the renewal and replacement should be governed by existing principles and that Ext.P8 grounding, relying on 2006 KLT 1013(FB), bars replacement unless sought during vacancy, and that the vehicle’s ownership status raises eligibility issues. They argue that the permit renewal process requires strict adherence to statutory and policy directives and that the grounds for rejection were valid under the circumstances.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Aysha v. RTA, Kasaragod	2006(3) KLT 1013	Distinguished	Outlined as a proposition in Aysha but held not to bear on the present issue since it deals with cancellation due to non-availability of a vehicle, which is not the central question here.
Raveendran v. RTO, Kannur	1995(1) KLT 126	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that possession of a vehicle suffices for operating under a valid permit, regardless of ownership.
W.P.(C) No. 9012/2007	W.P.(C) 9012/2007	Positive	Ext.P9 decision cited to illustrate that replacement can be allowed even when renewal is pending.
2006 KLT 1013(FB)	2006 KLT 1013(FB)	Mentioned Only	Referenced as a potential Full Bench decision; court notes it cannot locate a corresponding Full Bench decision.

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 C. Manoj Kumar v. Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam & Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam 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 K.VINOD CHANDRAN** ## **FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2014/30TH PHALGUNA, 1935** ## **WP(C).No. 6347 of 2014 (P)** **---------------------------** ## **PETITIONER :** **---------------------** **C. MANOJ KUMAR, PUTHIYAVEEDU, VADAKODE, KURA P.O. KOTTARAKKARA.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK** ## **RESPONDENT(S) :** **----------------------------** **1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM - 686 001.** **2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,** **KOTTAYAM - 686 001.** **R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. R. REMA** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Mn** **...2/-** ## **WP(C).No. 6347 of 2014 (P)** ## **--------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS : -------------------------------------** **EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT VALID TILL 26/9/2011. EXT.P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RTA, KOLLAM DATED 30/4/2012 GRANTING CONCURRENCE FOR RENEWAL OF PERMIT. EXT.P2(a): A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RTA, PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 26/4/2012 GRANTING CONCURRENCE FOR RENEWAL OF PERMIT. EXT.P2(b): A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RTA, ERNAKULAM DATED 4/4/2012 GRANTING CONCURRENCE FOR RENEWAL OF PERMIT. EXT.P3: A TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 16/2/2013. EXT.P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT DATED 22/10/2013. EXT.P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REPLACEMENT DATED 22/11/2013. EXT.P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY PERMIT UNDER SECTION 87 (1) (d) DATED 30/11/2013. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 04/12/2013 IN WPC NO.29849/2013. EXT.P8: A TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 17/01/2014. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED IN WPC NO.9012/2007.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL --------------------------------------------------------** ## **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE Mn** **K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No.6347 of 2014** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21[st] day of March, 2014** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner was a regular permit holder in the route Punaloor-Ernakulam, evidenced by Ext.P1 which permit was valid till 26.09.2011. The petitioner had applied for renewal well in time and since it was an inter-district route concurrence was sought for from the sister RTAs. The principal RTA was the RTA, Kottayam and the sister RTAs who had to grant concurrence, were the RTAs of Kollam, Pathanamthitta and Ernakulam districts. The sister RTAs granted concurrence respectively by Ext.P2 series of documents produced herein. 2. The matter was once placed for consideration before the RTA Kottayam and the same was adjourned by Ext.P3 since, there was a draft WPC.6347/2014 : 2 : notification in force at that point of time. In the meanwhile, the petitioner took valid possession of a vehicle under a lease deed, produced herein as Ext.P4, and sought also for replacement of the vehicle by Ext.P5. 3. The petitioner had also applied for temporary permit as per Ext.P6 since the regular permit was pending consideration. On the petitioner approaching this Court, a direction was issued in Ext.P7 that the renewal application and replacement application be considered simultaneously by the RTA and the petitioner's temporary permit applicationalso be considered in the meanwhile by the 2[nd] respondent. Subsequently all these applications were taken together by the RTA and the same was rejected by Ext.P8. 4. The rejection of the renewal application and replacement application by Ext.P8 was on two WPC.6347/2014 : 3 : grounds; one that, according to the decision reported in 2006 KLT 1013(FB), the application for replacement cannot be considered; since the replacement was not proffered during the vacancy of the regular permit. The next ground was that the vehicle sought to be replaced is not owned by the petitioner,who has sought for such replacement. 5. This Court is unable to find a Full Bench decision reported as 2006KLT 1013(FB). The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the reference must be, to **Aysha v. RTA, Kasaragod [2006(3) KLT 1013]** , wherein a learned Single Judge had held that non-availability of a vehicle cannot be a ground for cancellation of permit. The issue considered in the said case was whether a vehicle operated in a valid permit, ought to be replaced prior to the expiry of the fitness; failing which the department opined that the permit itself WPC.6347/2014 : 4 : would stand cancelled. A learned Single Judge of this Court found that the view of the department is not correct and that the permit cannot be cancelled only for the reason that a new vehicle was not provided to replace the vehicle; the fitness of which had already expired. That proposition has absolutely no bearing on the issue raised in the instant case. 6. The next ground is with respect to the petitioner being not the registered owner of the vehicle. This Court in **Raveendran v. RTO, Kannur [1995(1) KLT 126]** held that what is required to offer a vehicle for operation in a valid permit, whether by replacement or by initial grant, is only a valid possession of the vehicle and not the registered ownership. The petitioner also relies on Ext.P9 decision, which is apposite insofar as this Court had declared that, when a renewal application is pending, the permit holder can always offer a later model WPC.6347/2014 : 5 : vehicle for replacement even if the permit stood expired at the time the replacement was sought for. 7. In such circumstance, both the grounds in Ext.P8 cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. The RTA is directed to consider afresh the renewal and replacement applications in accordance with law and in accordance with the precedent cited above. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a certified copy of the writ petition, before the RTA. The application for temporary permit has also been rejected under Ext.P8. Needless to that when renewal say application is pending, it is for the Secretary, RTA to consider whether temporary permit application can be issued and in the circumstances coming to fore in the above case, there shall be a direction to issue temporary permit within a period of one week of the receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. WPC.6347/2014 : 6 : Writ petition allowed, the direction to consider renewal and replacement applications shall be carried out within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. There is no order as to costs. Sd/- **(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE)** jma //true copy// P.A to Judge