George Thomas v. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Wayanad

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2011 / 14TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 4969 of 2011(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- GEORGE THOMAS, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. K.A.THOMAS, KATTAMKOTTIL HOUSE, SASIMALA.P.O. PULPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, WAYANAD-67001. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.M.MANOJ. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) No.4969 of 2011 EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF RTA, WAYANAD DATED 15.6.2010 - EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11.7.2010 - EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 21.7.2010 - EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11.8.2010 - EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 6.12.2010 IN WPC 35542/2010 - EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22.12.2010 - EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 6.1.2011 - EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24.1.2011 - EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-12/E 5657 - EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 2.2.2011. - EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY PERMIT DATED 24.3.2011. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. ## **P.N. RAVINDRAN, J.** ------------------------------- ## **W.P.(C) No. 4969 of 2011** ------------------------------- ## **Dated this the 4[th] day of April, 2011** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner, an existing stage carriage operator, applied for the grant of a fresh regular stage carriage permit to operate a stage carriage on the route Parakkadavu – Kannur (via) Pulpally, Payyampally, Koilery, Mananthavady, Nedumpoyil, Koothuparamba, Mambram as a limited stop ordinary service. After the concurrence of the Regional Transport Authority, Wayanad was obtained, the Regional Transport Authority that met on 15.6.2010 resolved to grant the permit subject to settlement of timings. The petitioner had not along with his application furnished the details of the vehicle offered by him. Upon service of a copy of Ext.P1 proceedings, the petitioner produced before the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Wayanad the current records of stage carriage bearing registration No. KL-12/A 9747 which he was operating on the route Kunnathukavala – Sulthan Bathery. The said officer thereupon issued Ext.P2 notice dated 11.7.2010 proposing to convening a timing conference at 11 a.m. on 21.7.2010. Later it was adjourned to 3.8.2010 and still later to 20.8.2010, as can be W.P.(C) No.4969of 2011 2 seen from Exts.P3 and P4 notices dated 21.7.2010 and 11.8.2010 respectively. 2. The petitioner thereupon filed W.P.(C) No.35542 of 2010 in this Court seeking a direction to the respondent to settle the timings and issue the permit expeditiously. By Ext.P5 judgment delivered on 6.12.2010, this Court disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the respondent to implement Ext.P1 and settle the timings within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with notice to the petitioner and other operators operating on the route. The respondent thereafter issued Ext.P6 notice dated 22.12.2010 proposing to hold the timing conference on 5.1.2011. The timing conference was thereafter adjourned to 20.1.2011 as per Ext.P7 notice issued on 6.1.2011 and thereafter to 1.12.2011 as per Ext.P8 notice issued on 24.1.2011. It is stated that on that date, the timings were settled. Though in Exts.P2, P3 and P4, there was no stipulation regarding the production of records relating to the vehicle for which the permit is granted, in Exts.P6 and P8 W.P.(C) No.4969of 2011 3 notices, the respondent directed the petitioner to produce the current records of the vehicle for which the permit is granted before the timing conference. The petitioner states that during the timing conference held on 1.2.2011, he had produced the current records of stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-12E-5657 and thereupon the time schedule was settled. This writ petition is filed contending that notwithstanding the settlement of timings, the respondent has declined to issue the permit so as to enable the petitioner to operate the service using the stage carriage bearing registration No.KL 12-E 5657. The petitioner states that the respondent has after the time schedule was settled taken the stand that as the petitioner had produced the current records of the stage carriage bearing registration No.KL12/A 9747 which he is operating on the route Kunnathukavala – Sulthan Bathery, he cannot issue the permit since the current records of the vehicle KL 12-E 5657 were not produced within 30 days from the date of service of Ext.P1 proceedings or within four months from that date. In this writ petition, the petitioner W.P.(C) No.4969of 2011 4 seeks a direction to the respondent to issue a regular permit in respect of the stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-12/E 5657 with the timings settled on 1.2.2011 within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. 3. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that as the law permits him to change the vehicle which is referred to in the application before the permit is actually issued after the grant, there is no reason why the respondent cannot issue a permit in respect of the stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-12/E 5657, as the current records had been produced earlier on 8.7.2010. 4. I heard Sri.P.Deepak, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.P.M.Manoj, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the vehicle initially offered by the petitioner (KL-12A 9747) was operating on the route Kunnathukavala-Sulthan Bathery on the strength of a regular permit and therefore, the permit could not have been W.P.(C) No.4969of 2011 5 issued in respect of that vehicle. As regards the stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-12/E 5657, the learned Government Pleader submitted that as the current records were not produced within 30 days of Ext.P1 and in any case the production was beyond the period of four months, the grant lapsed and therefore the permit cannot now be issued at this distance of time. In the instant case, the respondent has declined to issue the permit on the ground that the vehicle offered by the petitioner is not a vehicle which is available for service and therefore as the petitioner had not offered a vehicle which is ready to be put on road, within four months from the date of communication of Ext.P1, the grant has lapsed and permit cannot now be issued. I am afraid the said contention cannot be accepted. A Division Bench of this Court has in **Ahammed v. Regional Transport Authority** (2003 (1) KLT 19) held that an application for regular permit cannot be declined on the ground that the vehicle offered by the applicant is already operating as a stage carriage on the strength of a W.P.(C) No.4969of 2011 6 regular permit. After analysing the decision of this Court in **Johnson v. RTA, Thrissur** (1999 (2) KLT 434), the Division Bench held that if the vehicle offered by the operator is already covered by a permit, that cannot be a reason to deny the grant for the reason that in a case where the validity of the permit expires, the applicant can certainly produce the current records of that vehicle, if the time for production of the records has not expired. In the light of the authoritative pronouncement of the Division Bench of this Court, it cannot therefore be said that the grant in favour of the petitioner has ceased, as the petitioner did not offer a vehicle which was not covered by a permit within the time limit of 30 days stipulated in Ext.P1. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had initially produced within the period of 30 days the current records of stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-KL-12A 9747. For the reason that that vehicle was operating on the route Kunnathukavala-Sulthan Bathery on the strength of a regular permit, the permit is now denied to be petitioner. It is also not in dispute that though the timing W.P.(C) No.4969of 2011 7 conference was held on five different dates, pursuant to Exts.P2, P3, P4, P6 and P7 notices, the time schedule was not settled till 1.2.2011. The petitioner had on that date produced the records of the vehicle No.KL-12/E 5657 which is not operating on any route. The respondent therefore cannot be heard to contend that grant in favour of the petitioner ceased on the expiry of four months from the date of communication of Ext.P1. I am therefore of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. I accordingly dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent to issue a regular permit to the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1 proceedings with the set of timings settled on 1.2.2011 so as to enable the petitioner to operate the stage carriage No.KL-12/E 5657 on the route Parakkadavu – Kannur. The permit shall be issued within two weeks from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before the second respondent. W.P.(C) No.4969of 2011 **P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE.** nj. 8