High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-07-20Writ petition disposed of with directions to ac...

Hassainar C.P. and others v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 24192 of 2016 (Y)

Neutral Citation:/null

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Shaji P. Chaly
Judgment Date: 2016-07-20
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition disposed of with direction to respondents 2 and 3 to accept the petitioners’ applications and consider them in accordance with law within six weeks from receipt, adopting the principles laid down in Rajesh (supra).
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of with directions to accept and consider applications within six weeks in light of Rajesh (supra).

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Hassainar C.P.
Sumesh. B.
Sumesh (S/O Vasumathy)
Raheem A.V.
Sameera A.
Geetha E.V.
Subair K.
Gopi N.
Abdul Kareem
Shoukkathali T.P.
Aisha
Muhammed Kunhi
Anil K.
Sameer P.
Rafeeq K.
Chenoth Madathil Muhammed Afsal
Hameed M.
Jayanthi
Aboobacker C.P.
Ibrahim K.
Abdulla M.
Ratheesh B.

Respondents

State of Kerala, represented by its Secretary, Motor Vehicles Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695001
Regional Transport Officer, Kanhandgad, Kasaragod District-671121
Regional Transport Authority, Kanhandgad, Kasaragod District-671121

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Suresh Kumar Kodoth
• Sanil Jose
• K.P. Antony Binu

Counsels for Respondents

• Senior Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

Petitioners are owners of autorickshaws challenging the Regional Transport Authority’s rejection of their applications seeking variation of permit conditions. They allege that the 2nd respondent did not accept their applications nor consider them, contravening the principles laid down by this court in Rajesh v. Secretary, RTA, which held that general orders regarding parking and picking up passengers by autorickshaws cannot be insisted upon. The petition argues that such blanket restrictions adversely affect the petitioners’ livelihood and that individual permit conditions should be examined on the merits and in conformity with law. The respondents, represented by the Senior Government Pleader, oppose any blanket order and maintain that permit variation must follow statutory and administrative norms. The court frames the sole question as whether the petitioners are entitled to the same treatment as articulated in Rajesh. After hearing both sides, the court concludes that the petitioners have a right to seek variation and to have their applications accepted and considered in accordance with law. Consequently, it directs the 2nd and 3rd respondents to accept the petitions and examine the applications within six weeks from receipt, applying the Rajesh principles. The decision effectively ensures that autorickshaw owners are not forced to operate under general, potentially restrictive orders and that permit variation requests are evaluated on individual facts and lawful standards, aligning administrative action with contemporary judicial expectations.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argued for acceptance of their applications seeking variation of permit conditions and for relief consistent with the principle laid down in Rajesh v. Secretary, RTA, that generic orders on parking and passenger pickup should not bar individual permit variations. They contended that the 2nd respondent’s non-acceptance of applications denied them lawful consideration and livelihood protection.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents’ argument is not elaborated in the text; the learned counsel for the respondents appeared along with the Senior Government Pleader, and the court framed the issue to determine entitlement to similar treatment under Rajesh and to ensure compliance with law when examining permit-variation requests.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Rajesh v. Secretary, RTA	2014(3) KLT 341	Positive	Cited as controlling authority for the proposition that general orders on parking/picking up passengers cannot be insisted upon against autorickshaws; the court applies this principle to require acceptance and consideration of permit-variation applications.

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 Hassainar C.P. 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 20TH DAY OF JULY 2016/29TH ASHADHA, 1938** ## **WP(C).No. 24192 of 2016 (Y)** **----------------------------** **PETITIONER(S): ------------------------** **1. HASSAINAR C.P., S/O.ABOOBACKER. T., SULTHAN PALACE, OZHINHAVALAPPU P.O., KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **2. SUMESH. B.,** - **S/O.KOTTAN, HOSDURG KADAPPURAM, KANHANGAD. P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **3. SUMESH,** - **S/O.VASUMATHY, BATHERIKKAL HOUSE, HOSDURG BEACH, KANHANGAD. P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **4. RAHEEM A.V., S/O.ABDULLA. K, ILYAS NAGAR, P.O. KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **5. SAMEERA. A., D/O.ANDUMAYI, THOTTUMPURAM HOUSE, OZHINHAVALAPPU, P.O. KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **6. GEETHA E.V., D/O.ATHIRADHAN K.N, KIZHAKKECHETTATHIL HOUSE, KANHANGAD, P.O. BALLA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **7. SUBAIR K.,** - **S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, PAZHAYAKADAPPURAM, KANHANGAD. P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **8. GOPI N., S/O.NARAYANAN, AC NAGAR, ATHIKKOTH, BALLA. P.O., KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** ## **WP(C).No. 24192 of 2016 (Y)** ## **9. ABDUL KAREEM, S/O.IBRAHIM, BALLA BEACH, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **10. SHOUKKATHALI T.P.,** - **S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY, KANDAN KADAVU, MURIYANAVI, P.O. KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **11. AISHA, W/O.IBRAHIM, AYISHA MANZIL, MURIYANAVI, P.O. KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **12. MUHAMMED KUNHI, S/O.AHAMMED, NALUPURAPATTIL HOUSE, P.O. PADNEKKAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **13. ANIL K., S/O.NARAYANAN. K, KARAT HOUSE, LAKSHMINAGAR, THERUVATH, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **14. SAMEER. P., S/O.MUHAMMED, KALATHIL HOUSE, KANHANGAD SOUTH. P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **15. RAFEEQ. K., S/O.KHADER, NACHANIKADAVU, OZHINHAVALAPPU, KANHANGAD P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **16. CHENOTH MADATHIL MUHAMMED AFSAL, S/O.AZEEZ KOYAPURATH, THAVARA VALAPPIL, KARAKUNDU, PADNEKAD. P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **17. HAMEED. M., S/O.MOIDU, AKKARAMMAL HOUSE, KUSHAL NAGAR, P.O. KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **18. JAYANTHI, W/O.SREENIVASAN, NEAR BADEAKALI TEMPLE, KUSHALNAGAR, KANHANGAD. P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **19. ABOOBACKER C.P., S/O.M. KUNHABDULLA, KANHANGAD SOUTH, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **20. IBRAHIM. K.,** - **S/O.MOIDU. K, AKKARAMMAL HOUSE, KUSHALNAGAR, KANHANGAD. P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** ## **WP(C).No. 24192 of 2016 (Y)** **21. ABDULLA. M., S/O.KUNHIMOIDEEN. T, SAFRAS MANZIL, PAZHAYAKADAPPURAM, KANHANGAD SOUTH. P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **22. RATHEESH. B., S/O.VASU, BATHERIKKAL, HOSDURG KADAPPURAM, KANHANGAD. P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH, SRI.SANIL JOSE, 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, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 121.** - **BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT.K.A. SANJEETHA.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** rs. ## **WP(C).No. 24192 of 2016 (Y)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-K-4502. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-E-4825. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-A-7593. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-E-5251. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-9376. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-14-C-1251. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-E-2308. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-J-3187. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-J-8826. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-8947. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-A-7853. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-F-7041. EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-D-3893. EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-K-4801. EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-D-2526. .....2/-** ## **WP(C).No. 24192 of 2016 (Y)** **EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-F-6409.** - **EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-E-8241.** - **EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-A-1781.** - **EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-C-2935.** - **EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-14-F-4003.** |**EXHIBIT P21**|**TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF**| |---|---| ||**KL-60-H-4768.**| |**EXHIBIT P22**|**TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF**| ||**KL-60-K-7757.**| |**EXHIBIT P23**|**TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT**| ||**ISSUED TO 1ST PETITIONER.**| |**EXHIBIT P24**|**TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT**| ||**ISSUED TO 2ND PETITIONER.**| |**EXHIBIT P25**|**TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT**| ||**ISSUED TO 3RD PETITIONER.**| |**EXHIBIT P26**|**TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT**| ||**ISSUED TO 4TH PETITIONER.**| |**EXHIBIT P27**|**TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT**| ||**ISSUED TO 5TH PETITIONER.**| |**EXHIBIT P28**|**TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT**| ||**ISSUED TO 6TH PETITIONER.**| |**EXHIBIT P29**|**TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT**| ||**ISSUED TO 7TH PETITIONER.**| |**EXHIBIT P30**|**TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT**| ||**ISSUED TO 8TH PETITIONER.**| |**EXHIBIT P31**|**TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT**| ||**ISSUED TO 9TH PETITIONER.**| |**EXHIBIT P32**|**TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT**| ||**ISSUED TO 10TH PETITIONER.**| **....3/-** ## **WP(C).No. 24192 of 2016 (Y)** - **EXHIBIT P33 TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 11TH PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P34 TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 12TH PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P35 TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 13TH PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P36 TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 14TH PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P37 TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 15TH PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P38 TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 16TH PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P39 TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 17TH PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P40 TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 18TH PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P41 TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 19TH PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P42 TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 20TH PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P43 TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 21ST PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P44 TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 22ND PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P45 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 1.6.2016 IN WP[C]NO.18155/2016.** **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL.** ## **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.S. TO JUDGE** rs. ## **SHAJI P. CHALY, J.** ----------------------------------------------- ## **W.P.(C). No. 24192 of 2016 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 20[th] day of July, 2016** ## **JUDGMENT** Petitioners are owners of autorickshaws. This writ petition is filed contending that even though petitioners have offered applications seeking variation of conditions of permit, same were not accepted by the 2[nd] respondent and it is thus seeking appropriate direction to the 2[nd] respondent to accept their applications and consider the same, this writ petition is filed. Petitioners also seek benefit of the judgment of this court in **Rajesh v. Secretary, RTA** [2014(3) KLT 341] wherein, this court held that general orders with respect to parking and picking up passengers by autorickshaws cannot be insisted upon. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Senior Government Pleader and perused the pleadings and documents on record. 3. The sole question to be considered is with respect to the acceptance of applications submitted by the petitioners since the petitioners are also entitled to get similar treatment W.P.(C). No.24192 of 2016 2 as per the principles of law laid down by this court in **Rajesh** cited supra. Therefore, there will be a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to accept the applications from the petitioners and consider the same in accordance with law, especially taking into account the law laid down in the case of **Rajesh** (supra), within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of applications. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- **SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE** smv 20.07.2016