High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2019-12-16Writ petitions disposed of with directions for ...

Johnson M.M., Viju V.M., S.Mohammed Salim, Jamzad N., Nijam V.M. v. Regional Transport Authority Palakkad and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).25532/2019(N) and WP(C).26617/2019(B)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A. Muhamed Mustaque
Judgment Date: 2019-12-16
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petitions are disposed of with directions that the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad shall conduct an enquiry within one month. If the enquiry report shows an overlapping of less than 5 km, the RTA’s order may be affirmed; if the overlap exceeds 5 km, the RTA’s order will be revoked. Interim orders remain in force pending the enquiry. The petitioners, respondents, and KSRTC representatives shall appear on 29.12.2019 for the enquiry proceedings.
Final Disposition: Writ petitions disposed of with directions for Secretary to conduct enquiry within one month; interim relief continued; disposition depends on enquiry outcome.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

JOHNSON M.M
VIJU.V.M
S.MOHAMMED SALIM
JAMZAD.N
NIJAM.V.M

Respondents

The Regional Transport Authority Palakkad
The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad
R.KRISHNADAS, S/O NARAYANAN NAIR, SEETHALAYAM, METTUPALAYAM, THATHAMANGALAM, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD
The Kerala State Transport Corporation, Transport Bhavan, Fort P.O, Thiruvananthapuram
The Joint Regional Transport Officer, Joint RTO's Office, Chittoor P.O., Palakkad

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri I. Dinesh Menon

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri G. Prabhakaran
• Sri P.C. Chacko

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition (civil) from the Kerala High Court arises out of the decision of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in MVAA No.74/2018, directing reconsideration of a grant of regular stage carriage permit on an intra-district route (Chittur–Alathur) and ordering fresh enquiry regarding overlapping with an existing route. The petitioners, private stage carriage operators, challenge the Regional Transport Authority’s (RTA) grant of a regular permit to the 3rd respondent, alleging violation of the nationalization scheme and an overlapping beyond permissible limits. The respondents, including the RTA, KSRTC, and officials, contend that the enquiry is warranted and that the petitioners’ objections may hinge on the overlapping and statutory guidelines. The court notes conflicting reports on overlapping and emphasizes that the secretary should conduct a proper enquiry, within a month, to determine whether the overlap exceeds the permissible threshold (as contemplated in GO(P) No. 08/2017/TRAN, Clause 5(c)). The court recognizes the petitioners’ right to question grant of permit and ultimately disposes of the petitions by directing an enquiry and preserving interim relief, keeping open the possibility of affirming or revoking the RTA order depending on the enquiry findings.

Provisions of Law Cited

GO (P) No. 08/2017/TRAN, Clause 5(c), dated 23.03.2017

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that granting a regular permit to the 3rd respondent violates the scheme of nationalization and results in an impermissible overlap. They point to reports indicating an overlap potentially exceeding the permissible threshold and argue that the Secretary must conduct a thorough enquiry. They emphasize their right to challenge grant of permit as existing operators on a saved route, citing prior jurisprudence and the Tribunal’s directions to fix timings and ensure compliance with the GO and Department decisions. They seek consideration of the overlap, production of current records, and a decision consistent with the scheme and statutory guidelines.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that an enquiry is warranted given conflicting findings; the Motor Vehicle Inspector had conducted an enquiry and filed a report, and the Secretary can delegate or authorize an officer to conduct enquiries. They rely on the scheme and GO/Departmental guidelines (Clause 5(c) of GO 2017) and argue that the private operators may be constrained by prior judgments (e.g., Mithilesh Rani) when a route is within the predefined scheme. They submit that the petition should be disposed of after proper enquiry, with interim relief maintained as required.

Cited Precedents (6)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Mithilesh Rani and others v. Regional Transport Authority, Dehradun and others	AIR 1994 SUPREME COURT 2229	Mentioned Only	Cited in support of the argument about third-party objections in permit grants; court does not apply the ratio to the present facts.
Observations of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala reported in 1980 KLT 249	1980 KLT 249	Mentioned Only	Referenced as part of a line of authorities; not directly applied in the decision.
Judgment in MVAA No.74/2018	MVAA No. 74/2018 (2.2.2019)	Mentioned Only	Cited as context for previous appellate order; not controlling in the present disposal.
Judgment in MVAA No.74/2018	MVAA No. 74/2018 (4.4.2018)	Mentioned Only	Cited as part of the chain of precedents but not applied as binding ratio here.
Judgment in 2004(3)KLT 595	2004(3) KLT 595	Mentioned Only	Cited in related discussions on overlapping and permit grants; not a binding ratio in this case.
Judgment in MVAA 74/2018	2 February 2019	Mentioned Only	Same MVAA decision cited for context; no direct application of its ratio.

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 Johnson M.M., Viju V.M., S.Mohammed Salim, Jamzad N., Nijam V.M. v. Regional Transport Authority Palakkad 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 A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE** ## **MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.25532 OF 2019(N)** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 JOHNSON.M.M, MANKUNNEL HOUSE,MANNAMANGALAM, THRISSUR.** - **2 VIJU.V.M, VILANGOTTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KATTILAPOOVAM,THRISSUR.** - **3 S.MOHAMMED SALIM, CHAKKARAKIZHAVAN HOUSE, EAST STREET,KODUVAYUR, PALAKKAD.** - **BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY PALAKKAD,REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,RTA,COLLECTORATE.P.O, PALAKKAD-678001.** - **2 THE SECRETARY,REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, COLLECTORATE.P.O,PALAKKAD-678001.** - **3 R.KRISHNADAS,S/O NARAYANAN NAIR,SEETHALAYAM, METTUPALAYAM,THATHAMANGALAM, CHITTUR,PALAKKAD-678101.** - **4 THE KERALA STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN,FORT.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR-695023.** - **5 THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, JOINT RTO'S OFFICE,CHITTOOR.P.O, PALAKKAD-678101.** - **BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER R3 BY ADV.SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN** - **R4 BY SRI.P.C.CHACKO, SC, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN.** ## **MABLE CKURIEN GP** [ WP(C).25532/2019, WP(C).26617/2019 ] 2 **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.12.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).26617/2019(B), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** [ WP(C).25532/2019, WP(C).26617/2019 ] 3 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE** **MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.26617 OF 2019(B)** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 JOHNSON M.M, MANKUNNEL HOUSE, MANNAMANGALAM,THRISSUR** - **2 VIJU.V.M.,VILANGOTTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KATTILAPOOVAM, THRISSUR** - **3 S.MOHAMMED SALIM, CHAKKARAKIZHAVAN HOUSE, EAST STREET,KODUVAYUR,PALAKKAD** - **4 JAMZAD.N.,S/O. NIJAM V.M.,THAVAKKAL MANZIL, VADAKKANCHERY P.O., PALAKKAD** - **5 NIJAM.V.M.,** **THAVAKKAL MANZIL, VADAKKANCHERY P.O., PALAKKAD BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY RTA, COLLECTORATE P.O., PALAKKAD-678 001** - **2 THE SECRETARY,REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, COLLECTORATE P.O., PALAKKAD-678 001** - **3 R.KRISHNADAS, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, SEETHALAYAM, METTUPALAYAM, THATHAMANGALAM, CHITTUR ,PALAKKAD-678 101** - **4 THE KERALA STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR-695 023** - **5 THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, JOIT RTO'S OFFICE, CHITTOOR P.O., PALAKKAD-678 101** [ WP(C).25532/2019, WP(C).26617/2019 ] 4 **R3 BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN R4 BY SRI.P.C.CHACKO, SC, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.12.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).25532/2019(N), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** [ WP(C).25532/2019, WP(C).26617/2019 ] 5 ## **JUDGMENT** **[ WP(C).25532/2019, WP(C).26617/2019 ] Dated this the 16th day of December 2019** ## The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam in MVAA No.74/2018 ordered as follows:- “ _In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The first respondent is directed to reconsider the application for regular permit submitted by the appellant after hearing both sides and KSRTC and after considering the contention regarding objectionable overlapping. The Secretary shall conduct an enquiry as directed by the first respondent regarding the question of overlapping after giving notice to the appellant, respondent as well as KSRTC. The first respondent shall pass orders in accordance with law within two months from the date of the receipt of copy of this judgment.”_ ## 2. That was an appeal filed by the 3[rd] respondent herein. Pursuant to the direction, the Regional Transport Authority considered the matter and ordered as follows:- “ _Since the distance of overlapping is found within the permissible limit stipulated in Clause 5(c) G.O(P)No.08/2017/Tran dated 23.03.2017 and also in view of the observations of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala reported in 1980 KLT 249, 2000(1) KLT 141 and 2005(1) KLT 987,_ _**fresh**_ [ WP(C).25532/2019, WP(C).26617/2019 ] 6 _**regular stage carriage permit is granted,** subject to settlement of timings and production of current records of a suitable stage carriage as prescribed in the decision of STA, Kerala meeting held on 16.01.2019 in Department Item no.1 within one month from the date of communication of the decision, failing which grant of permit will be treated as revoked.”_ 3. I am not adverting to the previous litigations or other proceedings for the simple reason that it may not have any relevance to the present dispute as it is confined only to the issue relating to the overlap. The 3[rd] respondent is the applicant for regular permit for the intra district route Chittur-Alathur. This application was initially considered on 12.12.2015. The KSRTC objected to the application stating that there was an overlapping. There were several varying reports in regard to the overlapping. The 3[rd] respondent aggrieved by an order rejecting the application approached the Tribunal in the above appeal. Taking note of the various circumstances, the Tribunal directed the Secretary to conduct an enquiry. 4. It is apparent in this matter, that the Secretary, the Regional Transport Authority had not conducted enquiry. This short issue could have been resolved, if the Secretary, the Regional Transport Authority had conducted an enquiry as to the overlapping. [ WP(C).25532/2019, WP(C).26617/2019 ] 7 5. The petitioners are stage carriage operators. They objected granting regular permit to the 3[rd] respondent stating that this was granted in violation of scheme as overlapping is more than 5%. According to the petitioners, overlapping is 6.3 km. 6. The learned Government Pleader submits that the Motor Vehicle Inspector conducted an enquiry and filed a report. 7. The learned Counsel for the 3[rd] respondent submits that there is no embargo for Motor Vehicle Inspector to conduct an enquiry and to file a report and also submitted that though the Secretary was directed to conduct an enquiry it does not mean that he himself had to conduct an enquiry and that he can authorize any officer under him. 8. Peculiar facts of the case would clearly point out that there were varying reports regarding the overlapping. It is in such circumstances, that the Tribunal ordered that the Secretary should conduct an enquiry. No doubt, the Secretary in the normal course of things is not expected to conduct an enquiry. Taking note of the special circumstances, the Tribunal ordered the Secretary to conduct an enquiry. In such circumstances, it is appropriate that the Secretary conducts an enquiry. 9. The learned Standing Counsel for the KSRTC also submitted [ WP(C).25532/2019, WP(C).26617/2019 ] **==> picture [7 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** that such an enquiry is warranted in the light of the fact that overlapping is more than 5 k.m. In such circumstances, it is appropriate that the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority conducts an enquiry within a period of one month. 10. The learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent further argued that the KSRTC alone can challenge the grant of permit. The 3[rd] respondent relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in _**Mithilesh Rani and others v. Regional Transport Authority, Dehradun and others**_ [AIR 1994 SUPREME COURT 2229] wherein the Apex Court considered the issue of objection raised by the private operators in granting the regular permit on the ground that the route is covered by scheme. The Apex Court, noting that no scheme was produced in proceedings, ordered that the 3[rd] party cannot raise objection against grant of permit. 11. It is to be noted that the petitioners are existing operators operating in the same route based on the saved permit. 12. In such circumstances, I am of the view that they have every right to question grant of permit. 13. Considering the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the Secretary shall conduct an enquiry within a [ WP(C).25532/2019, WP(C).26617/2019 ] 9 period of one month. If the Secretary's report indicates that the overlapping is less than 5 k.m., it is within the permissible limit. Necessarily, the order passed now by the Regional Transport Authority can be affirmed. However, if the report indicates the overlapping is less than 5 k.m, the Regional Transport Authority's order would stand revoked as it exceeds 5 k.m. 14. Interim order in the matter will continue as relief as above worked out. 15. The petitioners, 3[rd] respondent and authorized representatives of the KSRTC shall appear before the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority on 29.12.2019 at 11 A.M. the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority can fix the time of enquiry. The writ petitions are disposed of as above. **Sd/-** ## **A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE** SAS/16/12/2019 **JUDGE** [ WP(C).25532/2019, WP(C).26617/2019 ] 10 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25532/2019** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT OF THE FIRST PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT OF THE SECOND PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT OF THE THIRD PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE EXTRACT OF THE DECISION OF RTA DATED 30.7.2019 IN ITEM NO.3. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN MVAA NO.74.2018 DATED 2.2.2019 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN 2004(3)KLT 595. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE EXTRACT COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE RTA,PALAKKAD DATED 12.12.2015. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE EXTRACT COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE RTA DATED 26.2.2018. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL IN MVAA NO.74/2018. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN MVAA NO.74/2018 DATED 4.4.2018. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN OP(c)NO.2834/2018. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP(C)NO.2834/2018. EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 14.7.2009. EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH OF THE ROUTE. EXHIBIT P15 TRUE EXTRACT COPY OF DECISION DATED 13.7.2016.** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R3 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIELD OFFICERS REPORT DATED 08-03-2019.** [ WP(C).25532/2019, WP(C).26617/2019 ] 11 |**EXHIBIT R3**|**B**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RTA**| |---|---|---| |||**SHOWING THE OBJECTIONABLE PORTIONS OF**| |||**SCHEME OF NATIONALIZATION IN PALAKKAD DATED**| |||**13-7-2016.**| |**EXHIBIT R3**|**C**|**TRUE COPY OF THE FIELD OFFICERS REPORT**| |||**ALONG WITH ROUGH SKETCH**| |**EXHIBIT R3**|**D**|**TRUE COPY OF THE FIELD OFFICERS REPORT**| |||**ALONG WITH ROUGH SKETCH**| ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26617/2019** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:** |**EXHIBIT P1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT OF THE FIRST**| |---|---| ||**PETITIONER**| |**EXHIBIT P2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT OF THE SECOND**| ||**PETITIONER**| |**EXHIBIT P3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT OF THE THIRD**| ||**PETITIONER**| |**EXHIBIT P4**|**TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF RTA DATED**| ||**30.7.2019 IN ITEM NO.3**| |**EXHIBIT P5**|**TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN MVAA NO.**| ||**74/2018 DATED 2.2.2019**| |**EXHIBIT P6**|**TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN 2004(3) KLT 595**| |**EXHIBIT P7**|**TRUE EXTRACT OF THE DECISION OF THE**| ||**RTA,PALAKKAD DATED 12.12.2015**| |**EXHIBIT P8**|**TRUE EXTRACT OF THE DECISION OF RTA DATED**| ||**26.2.2018**| |**EXHIBIT P9**|**TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL IN MVAA NO. 74/2018**| |**EXHIBIT P10**|**TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN MVAA NO.**| ||**74/2018 DATED 4.4.2018**| |**EXHIBIT P11**|**TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN OP(C)**| ||**NO.2834/2018**| |**EXHIBIT P12**|**TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP(C)**| ||**NO.2834/2018**| |**EXHIBIT P13**|**TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED**| ||**14.7.2009**| |**EXHIBIT P14**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH OF THE ROUTE**| |**EXHIBIT P15**|**TRUE EXTRACT OF DECISION DATED 13.7.2016**| |**EXHIBIT P16**|**TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION IN ITEM NO.4 DATED**| ||**30.7.2019**| |**EXHIBIT P17**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN WP(C) NO.**| ||**25532/2019 DATED 25.9.2019**| ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE FIELD OFFICERS REPORT ALONG WITH ROUGH SKETCH.** ## **EXHIBIT R3(B)** ## **TRUE COPY OF THE FIELD OFFICERS REPORT ALONG WITH ROUGH SKETCH.** //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE