K.G. BABU v. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur, District Transport Officer, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam, Addl. Respondents M.L. Johny and Joby

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN** **MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JULY 2014/30TH ASHADHA, 1936** ## **WP(C).No. 17414 of 2014 (B)** **----------------------------** **PETITIONER :-** **--------------** **K.G.BABU KOVATH HOUSE, VATTANTHARA P.O., THRISSUR.** **BY ADV. SRI.STALIN PETER DAVIS** ## **RESPONDENTS :-** **-----------------** **1. THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR-680001.** **2. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER** - **KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THRISSUR-680001.** **3. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT ERNAKULAM 682011.** **ADDL.4.M.L.JOHNY, MANGALAN HOUSE, KALAKKALLU, VARAKKARA PO., THRISSUR, WITH S/C KL 17/E 8686** **ADDL.5.JOBY, 5.327, MANJALI HOUSE, VENDORE, ALAGAPPANAGAR, THRISSUR, WITH S/C KL 8/X 8138.** **ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 21.7.2014 IN I.A.No.9582/2014.** **R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.CHACKO, SC, KERALA STATE ROAD** ## **TRANSPORT CORPN.** **ADDL.R4 & R5 BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.G.GOPAKUMAR** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-07-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **jvt** **WP(C).No. 17414 of 2014 (B)** **----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :-** **----------------------------** **EXHIBIT P1- A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 12223/14 DT. 9/5/14.** **EXHIBIT P2- A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DT 2-6-14 REJECTING TEMPORARY PERMIT APPLICATION ILLEGALLY BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P3- A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM ALONG WITH PETITION FOR DIRECTION IN MVAA 101/14.** **EXHIBIT P4- A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER REJECTING THE MP NO. 239/14 DT 20-6-14 IN MVAA 101/2014.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :- NIL** **--------------------------------** //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ## **K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. -----------------------------------W.P.(C) No.17414 of 2014 ------------------------------------Dated this the 21[st] day of July 2014** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner, a stage carriage operator conducting services on the route Mannampetta - Thrissur with the stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-7/AH 5320, has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P2 proceedings of the first respondent, rejecting the application for temporary permit submitted by him. Challenging Ext.P2, the petitioner had approached the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam by filing MVAA No.101/2014. As per Ext.P4 order, the interim order sought for by the petitioner has been rejected. According to the counsel for the petitioner, Exts.P2 and P4 are unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that, he had been conducting services on the route on the strength of a regular permit and a settled set of timings. However, he could not apply for renewal of his regular permit at the W.P.(C) No.17414 of 2014 -: 2 :- appropriate time. For the above reason, the petitioner has submitted an application for renewal along with a petition for condonation of delay. The said applications are pending. It was in the said circumstances that the petitioner had submitted an application for the issue of a temporary permit under Sec.87(1)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). According to the petitioner, since he is seeking the issue of a temporary permit on the admitted vacancy of his own service, on the strength of a set of timings that were settled for his service, the authorities could have no objection to the grant of the same. He therefore, seeks the issue of appropriate directions for setting aside the impugned proceedings. 3. Adv.P.C.Chacko appears for the 2[nd] respondent. It is pointed out by the counsel that, the route of the petitioner overlaps a notified route, it is for the said reason that, the petitioner's application has been rejected. It is pointed out that, the petitioner has not submitted an application for renewal of his regular permit within the stipulated time. An application supported by a petition for condonation of delay W.P.(C) No.17414 of 2014 -: 3 :- cannot be treated as a proper application for renewal, which is stated to be pending. Reliance is placed on the decision in **Abbas Ali** v. **Secretary, RTA** [2012 (2) KLT 397] to contend that an application for temporary permit under Sec.87(1)(d) of the Act is not maintainable for the said reason. It is therefore, contended that rejection of the petitioner's application is justified. 4. Advocate G. Prabhakaran appears for additional respondents 4 and 5, who are impleaded in the writ petition. According to the counsel, the petitioner's regular service has not been in operation for the past three years. The petitioner only wants to conduct services on the strength of successive temporary permits. The additional 4[th] respondent is operating his services with identical set of timings as the petitioner. It is also contended that, the timings of the petitioner have been allotted to other operators since the petitioner was not conducting services on the said route. The learned counsel has invited my attention to Ext.P2 to point out that, the petitioner's application for regular permit was adjourned by the Regional Transport Authority on 8.8.2011 for the only W.P.(C) No.17414 of 2014 -: 4 :- ## reason that the petitioner was not present. 5. The counsel for the petitioner replies by pointing out that, the petitioner's permit is one of the permits that has been saved. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in **Managing Director, KSRTC, Tvm** v. **Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam and others** [2013 (3) KHC 820 (DB)] to contend that a temporary permit could be granted in such circumstances. 6. Heard. It is not in dispute that, the petitioner has not submitted an application for renewal of regular permit at the appropriate time. He has filed an application for renewal of his regular permit along with an application for condonation of delay. As per the dictum laid down by this Court in **Abbas Ali's case** (cited supra), a belated application submitted along with an application for condonation of delay cannot be considered to be an application for renewal, that is pending. Such an application could be considered to be pending only if the delay is condoned. In paragraph 17, the Division Bench has concluded the issue in the following words :- W.P.(C) No.17414 of 2014 -: 5 :- “For the reasons stated above, we are in complete agreement with the ratio dicidendi or Shahul Hameed (supra). We accordingly, affirm that view. The applications for temporary permit filed invoking S.87(1)(d) shall be considered only in cases where the applications for renewal of permit are filed within the period prescribed in S.81 and in cases where the applications for renewal are filed out of time, the applications for temporary permit under S.87(1)(d) shall be considered only after the RTA or the STA, as the case may be, entertains such applications for renewal on being satisfied that the applicant was prevented by good and sufficient cause from making the application for renewal within the time specified.” In view of the above binding dictum, it cannot be said that the petitioner's application for regular permit is pending. For the above reason, the action of the first respondent rejecting the petitioner's application cannot be found fault with. It is true that, some other reasons are also stated in Ext.P2. In Ext.P4, the interim order has also been rejected but, for other reasons. However, since the application for temporary permit itself is not maintainable, in view of the dictum referred to above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders. Since the petitioner's application for regular permit is W.P.(C) No.17414 of 2014 -: 6 :- pending consideration of the Regional Transport Authority, it is sufficient that the same is directed to be considered and disposed of expeditiously. In view of the above, while declining relief to the petitioner, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to place the application for regular permit submitted by the petitioner along with the application for condonation of delay for consideration before the next meeting of the Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur. **Sd/K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.** Jvt