G. Venugopalan v. Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad and Others

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
Judgment Date: 2021-04-07
Court Decision / Holding: This Writ Petition will stand dismissed.
Final Disposition: Writ petition dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

G. Venugopalan

Respondents

The Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad, rep. by its Secretary
The Secretary, The Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad
Chenthamara Dreams, Kaniyarpadam, Chittoor P.O, Palakkad
Vipin.K.V, S/O Vas, Krishna Nivas, Karinjalipallam, Chittoor, Palakkad

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• O. D. Sivadas

Counsels for Respondents

• I. Dinesh Menon
• Smt Sheeja C S

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition challenges Ext.P9 order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT) Ernakulam, which directed the Regional Transport Authority (RTA) to consider the petitioner’s request to accept the records of the stage carriage KL-09-AR-1661 for issuing a fresh permit on the intra-district Palakkad route. The petitioner, G. Venugopalan, had applied for a regular permit in 2016; after a sequence of proceedings, the matter was remanded by the STAT and a permit was granted subject to conditions and production of up-to-date records. The petitioner produced records of several vehicles: KL-07-AE-2727 and later KL-09-AR-1661; however, in 2019 the RTA refused to grant a permit on the ground that the vehicle was more than eight years old. The petitioner later produced KL-09-P-4206 in 2020, seeking acceptance of the new vehicle’s records; the State contends that under Section 72 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 159(2) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, the RTA may consider the application with conditions, and that the substitution of a vehicle is permissible post-grant but before issuance of the permit. The petitioner’s argument centers on timely production of original records and the permissibility of substituting a vehicle. The court ultimately upholds the STAT direction to the RTA to consider the current records and sustains the challenge to the earlier limitations, dismissing the petition, clarifying that the right to grant the permit lies with the RTA (not the Secretary).

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 72 of the Motor Vehicles ActRule 260A of the Kerala Motor Vehicles RulesRule 159(2) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles RulesRule 133(1)(a) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner’s counsel submitted that since original records of the vehicle were produced in time and substitution of the vehicle is permissible after grant and before the issuance of a permit, the STAT should have directed the matter to the Secretary to pass orders under delegated powers rather than directing the RTA to reconsider. The pandemic-related delays and late production of records were highlighted, with alternative current records (KL-09-AR-1661 and later KL-09-P-4206) offered for acceptance.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that under Section 72 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the RTA has the authority to consider the application and impose appropriate conditions. The delay in producing current records (and the substitution of a later model vehicle) was argued to be in violation of the Rules (Rule 159(2)). The RTA’s prerogative to grant a permit lies with the RTA, not its Secretary, under the relevant delegation and procedural rules.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Shihabudin v. STA	W.P.(C) No.9 of 2020	Positive	The STAT’s reliance on the pronouncement in Shihabudin v. STA to note that the Rule 260A amendment took effect from 29.01.2019 and thereby invalidated the earlier STA criteria is acknowledged by the present court; the case is used to support the interpretation that the amended rules govern the eligibility criteria for permits.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **WEDNESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1943** ## **WP(C).No.18803 OF 2020(A)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **G.VENUGOPALAN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.GOVINDASWAMY,NO.2/85,NORTH STREET,KODAMBA,PALAKKAD.** **BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,PIN-678001.** - **2 THE SECRETARY, THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD,PIN-678001.** - **3 CHENTHAMARA, DREAMS, KANIYARPADAM, CHITTOOR.P.O, PALAKKAD,PIN-678506.** - **4 VIPIN.K.V, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.VASU, KRISHNA NIVAS, KARINJALIPALLAM, CHITTOOR, PALAKKAD, PIN-678506.** **R4 BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON** **SMT SHEEJA C S, SR GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.18803 OF 2020(A)** **2** ## **JUDGMENT** Under challenge in this petition is Ext.P9 order dated 17.3.2020 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam in M.V.A.R.P.No. 150 of 2019, insofar as it directs the 1st respondent to consider the request of the petitioner to accept the records of the stage carriage bearing Reg. No. KL-09-AR-1661 for issuing permit afresh and to pass orders. The contention of the petitioner essentially is that since the records of the vehicle were produced well within time, there was no need for the 1st respondent to consider the request and the STAT ought to have directed the Secretary of the RTA to issue the permit after accepting the records. Seeking corrections, the petitioner had filed M.P.No.405 of 2020 which stands rejected by Ext.P12 order. The said order is also under challenge in this petition. 2. The records reveal that the petitioner had applied for a regular permit on the inter district route Palakkad Stadium bus stand - Kuttipalam on 17.11.2016 and offered a stage carriage bearing Reg. No. KL-02-P-3819. The said application was considered in the meeting held on 28.12.2017 and the same was rejected on the ground that the vehicle offered was not a suitable one. The said order was challenged before the STAT and by judgment dated 28.6.2018 in M.V.A.A.No.161 of 2018, the appeal was allowed and the RTA was directed to reconsider the application and pass fresh order. The application was reconsidered **WP(C).No.18803 OF 2020(A)** **3** in the meeting held on 15.11.2018 and regular permit was granted subject to production of a suitable stage carriage. The revision petitioner produced a vehicle bearing No.KL-07-AE-2727 well within time. However, his request for issuance of permit was not granted on the ground that the vehicle produced was a later model vehicle. The petitioner then produced a 2012 model vehicle bearing Reg. No. KL-09-AR-1661 and the 1st respondent in the meeting held on 30.7.2019 rejected the request made by the petitioner for grant of permit. The said order was challenged before the STAT. The STAT taking note of the pronouncement of this Court in **Shihabudin v. STA** [ W.P.(C) No.9 of 2020] came to the conclusion that the criteria fixed by the STA will not have any legal validity from 29.1.2019 on which day, Rule 260A of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, stood amended and a statutory age limit was fixed for the vehicles. Holding so, the 1st respondent was directed to consider the request of the petitioner to accept the records of the stage carriage bearing Reg. No. KL-09-AR-1661 for issuing permit afresh. 3. Sri. O.D.Sivadas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that since the original records of the vehicle were produced in time and as the substitution of vehicle is a permissible act after grant and before issuance of permit, the Tribunal ought to have issued directions to the 2nd respondent instead of the 1st respondent. According to the petitioner, due to the restrictions imposed due to the pandemic, the likelihood of the timing conference being held in the near future is remote. 4. The learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted that on 22.6.2020, the petitioner had produced the records of another stage carriage **WP(C).No.18803 OF 2020(A)** **4** bearing No.KL-09-P-4206 instead of KL-09-AR-1661 and requested for issuance of permit. According to the learned government pleader, under Section 72 of the Act, it is for the RTA to consider the application subject of course to imposition of appropriate conditions. It is contended that the current records of the stage carriage No KL-09-AR-1661 was produced only after 4 months and in clear violation of the provisions of the Rules. 5. Sri Dinesh Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents sought to sustain the orders passed by the STAT. 6. I have considered the submissions advanced. The records reveal that the RTA had considered the application filed by the petitioner on 17.11.2016 for fresh stage carriage permit on the intra district route Palakkad Stadium Bus Stand - Kuttippalam and in the meeting held on 15.11.2018 permit was granted to a suitable stage carriage subject to settlement of timings and production of current records of the vehicle within one month from the date of communication of the decision. The petitioner states that he produced a suitable vehicle within the time prescribed but the vehicle was not accepted on the ground that it was more than 8 years old. Later the insistence to produce a lesser model vehicle was set aside by this Court. The petitioner produced the records of the vehicle KL09AR 1661 only on 24.06.2019 with a request to accept the same. Though his request for issuance of permit was rejected by the RTA in its meeting held on 30.7.2019, the said order was interfered with by the Tribunal. The RTA was directed to consider the request of the petitioner to accept the current records of the stage carriage bearing registration number KL-09AR 1661 for issuing fresh **WP(C).No.18803 OF 2020(A)** **5** permit. It appears that the petitioner produced the records of another stage carriage KL-09-P-4206 on 22.6.2020 with a request to accept the records. 7. The contention of the petitioner appears to be that there was no reason for the STAT to direct the RTA to consider and grant the permit and the directions could have been issued to the Secretary, who could have passed the orders under the delegated powers under Rule 133 of the Rules. I am afraid the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. In the instant case, the right to grant the permit has been exercised by the RTA and not by the delegatee, who is the Secretary, as per Rule 133(1)(a) of the Rules. There is serious dispute on the question as to whether the records of the vehicle were produced well within the period stipulated under rule 159(2) of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules. If that be the case, the power to grant permit as ordered by the STAT can be taken up only by the original authority which had granted the permit. This was what prompted the STAT to issue directions to the RTA to consider the application under Section 72 of the Act and pass orders afresh. I find no reason to interfere with the said order in the facts and circumstances. This Writ Petition will stand dismissed. **SD/-** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** ## **JUDGE** ps **WP(C).No.18803 OF 2020(A)** **6** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 17.11.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR REGULAR PERMIT** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 21.01.2017 ISSUED BY THE RTA,PALAKKAD.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 28.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE RTA,PALAKKAD.** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.O6.2018 IN MVAA NO.161/2018 OF THE STAT,ERNAKULAM.** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 15.11.2018 ISSUED BY THE RTA,PALAKKAD.** **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 14.6.2017 ISSUED BY THE STA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 30.07.2019 ISSUED BY THE RTA,PALAKKAD.** - **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 4.4.2011 IN W.P(C)NO.4969 OF 2011 RENDERED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.** - **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.03.2020 IN MVARP NO.150/2019 OF THE STAT,ERNAKULAM.** - **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 04.08.2020 IN M.P.NO.405 OF 2020 OF MVARP NO.150/2019 FILED BY 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE STAT,ERNAKULAM.** - **EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 10.08.2020 IN M.P.NO.405 OF 2020 IN MVARP NO.150/2019 FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE STAT,ERNAKULAM** **EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.08.2020 IN M.P.NO.405 OF 2020 OF MVARP NO.150/2019 OF THE STAT,ERNAKULAM** **WP(C).No.18803 OF 2020(A)** **7** **EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR TEMPORARY PERMIT. EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATE 17.11.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR REGULAR PERMIT WITH CHELAN** - **EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 17.11.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR TEMPORARY PERMIT WITH CHELAN** - **EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.11.2016 IN WPC 37535 OF 2016 RENDERED BY THIS HONB'LE COURT** - **EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE ROUTE ENQUIRY REPORT OF THE FIELD OFFICER FOR REGULAR PERMIT** - **EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 4.01.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR HEARING** - **EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 24.07.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DECLINING TEMPORARY PERMIT** **EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE R.C.BOOK OF STAGE CARRIAGE BEARING NO KL 9 AE 2727** - **EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF THE INSURANCE POLICY OF STAGE CARRIAGE BEARING NO.KL 9 AE 2727.** - **EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPY OF THE R.C. PARTICULARS OF STAGE CARRIAGE BEARING NO.KL 9 AE 2727.** - **EXHIBIT P23 TRUE COPY OF THE R.C. BOOK OF THE VEHICLE NO.KL 9 AE 2727 STANDS REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF SRI.MURALEEDHARAN.** - **EXHIBIT P24 TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT OF STAGE CARRIAGE NO.KL 9 AE 2727 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO SRI.MURALEEDHARAN ON 19.03.2019.** - **EXHIBIT P25 TRUE COPY OF THE R.C. BOOK OF STAGE CARRIAGE NO.KL 9 AR 1661 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P26 TRUE COPY OF THE R.C. BOOK OF STAGE** **WP(C).No.18803 OF 2020(A)** **8** **CARRIAGE NO.KL 9 AR 1661 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF SRI.SURESH KUMAR ON 01.08.2019.** ## **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R4 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FOR CORRECTION IN M.P.405/2020 IN MVARP NO-159/2019 DATED 7.7.2020 EXHIBIT R4 (b) TRUE COPY OF THE DICTUM IN 2017(3)KLT 126** **//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE**