Jacob George v. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2011 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 2372 of 2011(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JACOB GEORGE,KARINGOZHACKAL HOUSE, EZHACHERRY.P.O,KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY,REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,KOTTAYAM-686001. 2. K.R.SUKUMARAN,KOCHUKIZHAKKEDATH, RAMAPURAM.P.O,PALA-679 576. 3. JOLMON GEORGE,MEMANANDUVILAMAKKAL HOUSE, RAMAPURAM.P.O,KOTTAYAM-679 576. - *4. O.V.THOMAS, AGED 40, S/O. VARGHESE, OLIKKAL HOUSE, CHAKKUMPUZHA P.O. RAMAPURAM. (*ADDITIONAL 4TH RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 17.3.2011 IN 1.A. NO.3379 OF 2011) BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.M.A.ASIF ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR FOR R2&3 SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON SRI.M.JITHESH MENON THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## WPC NO.2372/2011 ## APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: - EXT.P1. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 23.10.2010 - EXT.P2. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.11.2010 IN WPC NO.35302 OF 2010 EXT.P3. COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE AGENDA OF THE MEETING OF THE RTA, KOTTAYAM HELD ON 23.12.2010 - EXT.P4. COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER ON 18.12.2010 - EXT.P5. COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 17.1.2011 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- - ANNEXURE A. COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM P.St.S.A. DT. 2.2.2011 BY THE IMPLEADING PETITIONER. - EXT.R3(a). COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT ON THE ROUTE PALA-KOOTHATTUKULAM - EXT.R3(b). COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RTA KOTTAYAM DT. 23.12.2010 WHICH IS SIGNED ON 13.1.2011 - EXT.R3(c) COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE MOTOR VEHICLES INSPECTOR FORWARDED BY THE JOINT RTO, PALA TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT. 13.12.2010 /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE ## **P.N.RAVINDRAN** , **J. --------------------------W.P.(C) No. 2372 OF 2011 -------------------------Dated this the 17[th] day of March, 2011** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner is a stage carriage operator operating a stage carriage on the route Pala-Koothattukulam via Ramapuram on the strength of a regular permit. The second respondent herein is also operating a stage carriage on the said route on the strength of a regular permit. The second respondent submitted Ext.P1 application before the first respondent seeking a revision of the time schedule on the ground that two vacant slots exist at 7.35 am and 10.35 am as a result of two stage carriages operators surrendering their permits. In that application he sought allotment of the vacant timings for his stage carriage service. This writ petition is filed contending that the second respondent ceased to be the owner of the stage carriage mentioned in Ext.P1 application when he transferred his stage carriage to the third respondent and that pointing out this and other facts, the petitioner has filed Ext.P4 objection before the first respondent objecting to the revision of timings sought by the second respondent. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the proceedings initiated by the first respondent to hold a timing conference on the second respondent’s WPC No.2372/2011 2 application. 2. Respondents 2 and 3 have filed a counter affidavit admitting the fact that the permit in respect of the stage carriage now stands transferred to the name of the third respondent. The second respondent has also stated that on his application a detailed verification report was called for from the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Pala and that the said officer has submitted Ext.R3(c) report wherein it is stated that the two vacant timings have arisen as a result of two stage carriage operators surrendering their permits. It is contended that as the time schedule is for operating a stage carriage service, as the permit holder the third respondent is entitled to prosecute the application for revision of timings filed by the second respondent. 3. I heard Sri.P.Deepak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.P.M.Manoj, learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent, Sri. K.V.Gopinathan Nair learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 and P.Gopalakrishna Menon learned counsel appearing for the applicant in I.A. No.3379 of 2011 who seeks impleadment as additional fourth respondent in the writ petition. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that Ext.P1 application for revision of timings being an application for revision of WPC No.2372/2011 3 timings submitted by the owner of the stage carriage who has since then transferred the vehicle and the permit to the third respondent, it cannot be proceeded with. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relies on the decision of the Apex Court in **Ram Autar Lal Jain v. Minister of Transport** (1974 (1) SCC 305) to contend that the right to operate the stage carriage is personal to the second respondent and therefore he alone has the eligibility to have the application considered and disposed of on the merits. In other words, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the second respondent does not have any subsisting interest in the stage carriage, the application for revision of timings being personal to him, it cannot be prosecuted by the third respondent. Per contra, Sri.K.V.Gopinathan Nair, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 contended that under rule 212 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 that the schedule of timings is settled for a stage carriage operating on a route and unless the subsequent purchaser or transferee of the permit withdraws the application for revision of timings, the Regional Transport Authority or transferee of the permit is competent to pass orders thereon after considering the objections to the applications. He also contended that the decision WPC No.2372/2011 4 of the Apex Court in **Ram Autar Lal Jain v. Minister of Transport** (1974 (1) SCC 305) was rendered at a time when the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was in force which required consideration of the inter se merit of the applicants and that under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, comparison of the qualification arises only in city routes and that too only in cases where the State Government has issued a notification in exercise of the power conferred on it under sub section (3) of section 71 of the Act. 4. It is evident from the materials presently on record that the second respondent is no longer the owner of the stage carriage in question. He has also admitted that the third respondent is the present owner and permit holder. Ext.R3(b), the proceedings issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam establishes the fact that with effect from 23.12.2010, the second respondent has ceased to be the holder of the permit and the third respondent is the holder of the permit. Ext.P5 notice of the meeting proposed to be held on 25.1.2011 refers to the stage carriage bearing registration No.KL05/W 2821 operating on the route Pala-Koothattukulam via Chakampuzha, Ramapuram, Amanakara and Poovakulam. The pleadings also disclose that on a writ petition filed by the second WPC No.2372/2011 5 respondent, at a time when he was the owner of the vehicle and the permit holder, this Court had by Ext.P2 judgment directed the respondent to consider Ext.P1 application for revision of timings and pass orders thereon. A reading of Ext.P1 indicates that what was sought was the revision of timings of the service which the second respondent was operating. The third respondent, who is presently the permit holder and the owner of the vehicle, has not withdrawn the application for revision of timings. The question whether having regard to the reasons set out in Ext.P1 the time schedule is liable to be revised, is a matter for the first respondent to decide. In such circumstances, as the permit holder who is presently operating the service has not withdrawn the request made in Ext.P1, I am of the opinion that he is entitled to continue to prosecute the application from the stage at which he became the owner. I therefore find no merit in the objection raised by the petitioner and the operator seeking impleadment as additional fourth respondent, to the first respondent entertaining Ext.P1 application even after the permit in respect of the stage carriage operated by the second respondent stood transferred to the third respondent. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. It is WPC No.2372/2011 6 however clarified that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the second respondent's application for revision of timings and that it is for the first respondent to take a decision in the matter after affording an opportunity of being heard to the third respondent and other operators operating stage carriages on the route in question. In view of the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P2 judgment, the first respondent shall take expeditious steps to pass orders on Ext.P1 application within one month from the date on which the second respondent produces a certified copy of this judgment before him. **P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE)** vps WPC No.2372/2011 7 WPC No.2372/2011 8