Joseph Stanly v. Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam and others

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
Judgment Date: 2008-03-28
Court Decision / Holding: Quashing Exts.P6 and P9; directing the 1st respondent to reconsider the petitioner's renewal application expeditiously, within eight weeks from production of a copy of this judgment.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed in part; the RTA is directed to reconsider the renewal of the petitioner’s permit within eight weeks of production of a copy of the judgment; Exts.P6 and P9 quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Joseph Stanly

Respondents

Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam
The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam
The District Transport Officer, KSRTC, Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K.V. Gopinathan Nair

Counsels for Respondents

• M.R. Sabu
• K. Prabhakaran, SC, KSRTC

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Writ Petition (C) filed by Joseph Stanly challenging the renewal of a regular permit for the route Cherthala–Kaloor via Chellanam, Thoppumpadi and M.G. Road. The petitioner originally held a regular permit from 01.07.1996 which expired on 30.06.2006; renewal was granted by the Regional Transport Authority (RTA) but only up to Thoppumpady. The matter was taken to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT), which remanded for modification to avoid overlap with the notified route, and the petitioner proposed a modification via Kundannoor–Vyttila–Kadavanthara. The RTA again rejected the modified route on the ground of overlapping, prompting another appeal to the Tribunal, which was rejected (Exts.P9). The petitioner challenged Exts.P6 and P9 in this writ petition. The petition contends the renewal was allowed prior to the Government’s notification dated 09.05.2007, and therefore the notification should not affect the application; further, Exts.P11–P14 allegedly show renewals granted on both the original and modified routes, suggesting discrimination. The High Court directed a reconsideration by the RTA, indicating that the notification’s relevance must be assessed in light of the pre-notification filing, and allowed the writ petition in part mandating expeditious reconsideration of the renewal application, within eight weeks of copy of the judgment.

Provisions of Law Cited

Draft Government Notification dated 09.05.2007Clause 4 of the notification dated 09.05.2007

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner submits that the renewal application was initially allowed by Ext.P7 well before the 09.05.2007 notification, making the notification inapplicable to his case since the grant predated it. He argues that Clause 4 of the notification supports renewal on both the original and modified routes, as indicated by Exts.P11–P14, and he asserts discrimination vis-a-vis others. He relies on Vishundas Hundumal v. State of M.P. and Allied Transport Co. v. State of M.P. to bolster the claim of discriminatory treatment.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that decisions under the notification restrict fresh permits or renewals that affect supplementation schemes. They rely on the statutory framework in the notification to argue that the petition cannot be granted on the modified route and that the Tribunal’s view, which upheld the restrictions, should stand. They maintain that the petitioner's renewal, if allowed, would undermine the notification’s objectives and the draft scheme for routes, justifying the RTA’s postenforcement decisions.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Vishundas Hundumal v. State of M.P.	AIR 1981 SC 1636	Mentioned Only	Cited in support of discrimination arguments but not treated as controlling authority in the decision.
Allied Transport Co. v. State of M.P.	AIR 1981 SC 1639	Mentioned Only	Cited to bolster discrimination argument; no explicit adoption or overruling of its principles.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT :** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC** **FRIDAY, THE 28TH MARCH 2008 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1930** **WP(C).No. 8935 of 2008(L)** **---------------------------------------** **PETITIONER:** **---------------------** **JOSEPH STANLY, PANDIYAKKAL HOUSE, THAIKKAL.P.O., CHERTHALA.** **BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR** **RESPONDENTS:** **-------------------------** **1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY.** **2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,ERNAKULAM.** **3. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER,** - **K.S.R.T.C., ERNAKULAM.** **BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.R. SABU BY ADV. SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** Kss ## **WPC.NO.8935/2008 L** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXT.P1: COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT HOLDING BY THE PETITIONER ON THE ROUTE CHERTHALA – KALOOR VALID TILL 30/06/2006. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT RELATING TO THE PETITIONER'S APPLICATION DTD. 7/02/2007. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE S.T.A.T. IN MVAA NO.184/2007 DTD. 14/05/2007. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DTD. 20/06/2007. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE S.T.A.T., IN MVAA.NO.489/2007 DTD. 20/08/2007. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DTD. 20/09/2007. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM AS MVAA NO.2/2008 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL DTD. 1/1/2008. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN MVAA NO.2/2008 DTD. 28/01/2008. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE S.T.A.T. IN MVAA NO. 2/2008 DTD. 20/02/2008. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT DTD. 9/05/2007. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DTD. 18/07/2006 GRANTING RENEWAL OF PERMIT ON THE ROUTE PANELY – ERNAKULAM – MATTANCHERRY FOR STAGE CARRIAGE KL-08/B 7099. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DTD. 18/07/2006 GRANTING RENEWAL OF PERMIT ON THE ROUTE KOTHAMANGALAM – MATTANCHERRY FOR STAGE CARRIAGE KL-7/D 2102. EXT.P13: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DTD. 20/09/2007 EVEN GRANTING A FRESH PERMIT ON THE ROUTE ANDHAKARANAZHY – KALOOR . EXT.P14: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DTD. 18/12/2007 GRANTING RENEWAL OF PERMIT ON THE ROUTE CHERTHALA – ERNAKULAM KALOOR BUS STAND.** **/TRUE COPY/** Kss **P.A.TO JUDGE** ## **ANTONY DOMINIC, J.** ----------------------------------------------W.P.(C) No. 8935 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 28[th] day of March, 2008 ## **JUDGMENT** Petitioner was granted a regular permit on the route Cherthala-Kaloor Via., Chellanam, Thoppumpadi and M.G.Road. The regular permit was granted on 01.07.1996 and was valid up to 30.06.2006. On expiry of the permit, petitioner applied for renewal which was granted by Ext.P2 order of the RTA, limiting the route up to Thoppumpadi. An appeal was filed to the Tribunal which was disposed of by remanding the matter by Ext.P3 order and permitting the petitioner to suggest modification to avoid overlapping the notified route. It is stated that on remand the petitioner suggested a modification via Kundannoor, Vyttila and Kadavanthara and even that was rejected by the RTA by Ext.P4 order again on the ground of overlapping. 2. This order of the RTA was challenged before the Tribunal and the matter was again remanded by Ext.P5 order. The RTA again reconsidered and rejected the petitioner's application on the ground that the route suggested by the petitioner cannot be WPC No. 8935 OF 2008 2 allowed as per the draft notification issued on 09.05.07. The matter was carried in appeal by Ext.P7 and Ext.P8 is the counter filed by the KSRTC. The Tribunal considered the matter and rejected the appeal by Ext.P9. Reasoning of the Tribunal is that in view of the notification dt.09.05.07 a fresh permit or renewal affecting supplementation scheme cannot be granted. It is challenging Exts.P6 and P9 and seeking consequential reliefs, this writ petition is filed. 3. Counsel for the petitioner mainly submits that the application for renewal initially made was allowed by the RTA by Ext.P7 order, which is much prior to the notification dated 09.05.2007 and therefore the permit having been granted as on that date, the notification has no relevance for deciding his application. The other contention that is raised by the petitioner is that giving the benefit of Clause 4 of the notification dated 09.05.2007, permits on the original route and also the modified route, have been renewed by the RTA. He is relying on Exts.P11 to P14 in support of this contention and submits that he alone is WPC No. 8935 OF 2008 3 being discriminated in this respect. The plea of discrimination is also sought to be supported by relying on the judgment reported in **Vishundas Hundumal v. State of M.P.** [AIR 1981 SC 1636] and **Allied Transport Co. v. State of M.P.** [AIR 1981 SC 1639]. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and the Standing Counsel appearing for the 3[rd] respondent. 5. On considering the submissions made by the parties, I am satisfied that the matter needs to be reconsidered by the RTA itself. The RTA will have to consider whether the notification itself is of any relevance to the petitioner's application, since the application was submitted long before the notification was issued and has been allowed by the RTA prior to the issue of the notification itself. But then grant was only partial in the sense that it was limited up to Thoppumpady. Since I am leaving it to the RTA to decide the issue, I refrain from examining this contention any further. 6. Secondly, the petitioner is well founded in relying on WPC No. 8935 OF 2008 4 Exts.P11 to P14, renewal of permits granted through the route applied for by the petitioner and also through the modified route suggested by the petitioner. This contention of the petitioner also will have to be considered in the light of the judgments referred above. Therefore, quashing Exts.P6 and P9, I direct that the 1[st] respondent shall reconsider the application made by the petitioner for renewal of permit as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. **ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE** ttb WPC No. 8935 OF 2008 5