Muhammed Kutty and Others v. Joint Regional Transport Officer, Perinthalmanna, Malappuram District; Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram; M/S Perinthalmanna Municipality

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** ## **WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2016/11TH JYAISHTA, 1938** ## **WP(C).No. 18953 of 2016 (T)** **----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** **1. MUHAMMED KUTTY, S/O.ALIPPU, CHIRAKKAL HOUSE, KUNNAPPALLY P.O., PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **2. HAMZA,** - **S/O.UNNEEN, 8/22, THOTTASSERI HOUSE, CHERUKARA VIA, ERAVIMANGALAM P.O., PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **3. UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.MUNDI, AMBALAPATTA HOUSE, HOSPITAL ROAD, PERINTHALMANNA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **4. MUHAMMED ALI, S/O.MUHAMMED, KARIMPANAKKAL HOUSE, KUNNAPPALLY P.O., PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **5. ALIPPU,** - **S/O.MOIDU MOLLA, 7/453 F (116), MADAYIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUNNAPALLY P.O., PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. SMT.A.ANJANA SMT.K.S.SMITHA SMT.T.T.SHANIBA** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **1. THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679322.** **2. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN-679322.** **3. M/S.PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY PERINTHALMANNA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN-679322.** **BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **rvs.** _**WP(C).No. 18953 of 2016 (T)**_ ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:** |**EXT. P1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RTA, MALAPPURAM BY**| |---|---| ||**CIRCULATION UNDER RULE 130 OF THE KMV RULES VIDE**| ||**PROCEEDINGS NO.G1/5091/2014 DT.20-6-14.**| |**EXT. P2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ENDORSEMENT MADE RELATING TO THE 1ST**| ||**PETITIONER'S PERMIT OF VEHICLE NO.KL 53B-244 BY THE R1**| ||**CHANGING THE HALTING PLACE FROM ANGADIPPURAM TO**| ||**PERINTHALMANNA THARAYIL BUS STAND.**| |**EXT. P3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ENDORSEMENT MADE RELATING TO THE 2ND**| ||**PETITIONER'S PERMIT OF VEHICLE NO.KL 53D-5180 BY THE R1**| ||**CHANGING THE HALTING PLACE FROM ANGADIPPURAM TO**| ||**PERINTHALMANNA THARAYIL BUS STAND.**| |**EXT. P4**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ENDORSEMENT MADE RELATING TO THE 3RD**| ||**PETITIONER'S PERMIT OF VEHICLE NO.KL 53E-969 BY THE R1**| ||**CHANGING THE HALTING PLACE FROM ANGADIPPURAM TO**| ||**PERINTHALMANNA THARAYIL BUS STAND.**| |**EXT. P5**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ENDORSEMENT MADE RELATING TO THE 4TH**| ||**PETITIONER'S PERMIT OF VEHICLE NO.KL 53B-1043 BY THE R1**| ||**CHANGING THE HALTING PLACE FROM ANGADIPPURAM TO**| ||**PERINTHALMANNA THARAYIL BUS STAND.**| |**EXT. P6**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ENDORSEMENT MADE RELATING TO THE 5TH**| ||**PETITIONER'S PERMIT OF VEHICLE NO.KL 53 -4910 BY THE R1**| ||**CHANGING THE HALTING PLACE FROM ANGADIPPURAM TO**| ||**PERINTHALMANNA THARAYIL BUS STAND.**| |**EXT. P7**|**TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE THARAYIL BUS STAND-PERINTHALMANNA.**| |**EXT. P8**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.28-7-2015 SUBMITTED BY**| ||**THE PETITIONERS BEFORE R1.**| |**EXT. P9**|**TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT MADE IN WPC 13269/15 DT.4-8-15.**| |**EXT. P10**|**TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT MADE IN WPC 12993/15 DT.26-6-15**| ||**BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.**| |**EXT. P11**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.17-10-15 ISSUED BY R1 IN THE**| ||**NAME OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.**| |**EXT. P12**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.17-10-15 ISSUED BY R1 IN THE**| ||**NAME OF THE 2RD PETITIONER.**| |**EXT. P13**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.17-10-15 ISSUED BY R1 IN THE**| ||**NAME OF THE 3RD PETITIONER.**| _**WP(C).No. 18953 of 2016 (T)**_ **EXT. P14 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.17-10-15 ISSUED BY R1 IN THE NAME OF THE 4TH PETITIONER.** **EXT. P15 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.17-10-15 ISSUED BY R1 IN THE NAME OF THE 5TH PETITIONER.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:** **NIL.** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **rvs.** ## **SHAJI P. CHALY, J.** ----------------------------------------------- ## **W.P.(C). No.18953 of 2016 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 1[st] day of June, 2016** ## **JUDGMENT** This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to quash Ext.P11 to P15 orders dated 17.10.2015 passed by the 1[st] respondent, whereby certain conditions were imposed in the permits issued to the petitioners on the basis of variation sought for by the petitioners and for other related reliefs. 2. Brief facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: 3. The 1[st] petitioner herein is the registered owner of an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-53B-244 which is covered with a contract carriage permit issued by the Regional Transport Authority with halting place at EMS Hospital - Pattambi and the permit is valid up to 10.01.2020. The 2[nd] petitioner herein is the registered owner of an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-53D-5180 which is covered with a contract carriage permit issued by the Regional Transport W.P.(C). No.18953 of 2016 2 Authority with halting place at Angadipuram and the permit is valid up to 04.06.2017. The 3[rd] petitioner herein is the registered owner of an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL53E-969 which is covered with a contract carriage permit issued by the Regional Transport Authority with halting place at Angadipuram and the permit is valid up to 21.10.2017. The 4[th] petitioner herein is the registered owner of an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-53B-1043 which is covered with a contract carriage permit issued by the Regional Transport Authority with halting place at Angadipuram and the permit is valid up to 01.06.2019. The 5[th] petitioner herein is the registered owner of an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL53-4910 which is covered with a contract carriage permit issued by the Regional Transport Authority with halting place at Angadipuram and the permit is valid up to 10.12.2019. 4. Issuance of permits mentioned above have been made with a condition that the vehicles should halt at the respective places shown in the permits, though the permits were issued to operate in all fit roads in Malappuram District subject to the condition that the vehicles shall not park or pick up passengers W.P.(C). No.18953 of 2016 3 from within the city limits of Perinthalmanna. That apart it is contended that since the petitioners are residing within Perinthalmanna Municipal limits and intend to operate their respective auto rickshaws at Perinthalmanna, they have made separate applications for variation of permit condition of the vehicles mentioned above seeking to change the halting place to Perinthalmanna. That apart it is urged by the petitioners that on receipt of the applications itself, the 1[st] respondent has informed the petitioners that the said applications cannot be considered in view of the decision of the Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram dated 21.10.2004 vide item No.68 and also in view of the direction issued by the Transport Commissionor on 6.9.2013. That apart it is contended by the petitioners that in similar other circumstances, other contract carriage permit holders have made applications for variation of permit and have approached this court by filing W.P.(C) No.31199/2013 and connected case and a judgment was rendered by this court holding that such general orders cannot be passed by the RTA and each and every applications have to be considered W.P.(C). No.18953 of 2016 4 individually and reasoned order has to be passed as provided under Section 80(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is also contended by the petitioners that pursuant to the directions so contained in the judgment RTA, Malappuram in its meeting held on 20.6.2014 allowed similar applications for variation filed for changing the halting place within the Perinthalmanna Municipality, evident from Ext.P1. It is the contention put forth by the petitioners that petitioners are also entitled to get similar treatment as ordered in Ext.P1. Since the respondents were reluctant in following Ext.P1 proceedings petitioners have filed W.P.(C) No.23960/2014 seeking appropriate reliefs and the said writ petition was disposed of by directing the respondents to take appropriate action in accordance with Ext.P1 proceedings. Thereafter the variation sought for by the petitioners were allowed by the RTA by changing the halting place from Angadipuram to Perinthalmanna by making necessary endorsement in the respective permits making the halting place at Tharayil Bus Stand, Perinthalmanna evident from Exts.P2 to P6. It is the contention of the petitioner that the Tharayil Bus Stand is an abandoned place wherein no buses are being parked W.P.(C). No.18953 of 2016 5 at present and the petitioners have produced Ext.P7 photograph. It is aggrieved by the endorsements made in Exts.P2 to P6, petitioners have filed Ext.P8 representation before the 1[st] respondent. Consequent to the non-consideration of Ext.P8, petitioners have approached this court by filing W.P.(C) No.13269/2013 and secured judgment dated 4.8.2015 evident from Ext.P9. By the said judgment a direction was issued by this court directing respondents to consider Ext.P8 representation de hors the earlier decision after providing the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and also taking into account the decision of this court in W.P.(C) 12993/2015, within a period of two weeks. 5. Thereafter 1[st] respondent has passed an order dated 17.10.2015 rejecting the respective applications made by the petitioners for change of halting place, ignoring the observations made in Ext.P9 judgment and also the observations contained in Ext.P10 judgment in W.P.(C) 12993/2015 by Exts.P11 to P15 orders. It is thus aggrieved by Exts.P11 to P15 orders rejecting the variation of halting place sought for by the petitioners, this writ petition is filed. W.P.(C). No.18953 of 2016 6 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents, perused the pleadings and documents produced. On a consideration of the rival submissions made by counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader, I am of the considered opinion that this issue is covered by a decision rendered in **Rajesh v. Secretary, RTA [** 2014(3) KLT 341], wherein it was held that the Regional Transport Authority cannot issue a general order that, only certain number of permits would be permitted in an area and further that the mere existence of a number of permits and the decision by the Regional Transport Authority or the higher authority to restrict the grant based on numbers alone would fall foul, since such limits could be only prescribed by the State Government by issuing a notification. 7. Following the said judgment, several judgments were rendered by this court. In view of the legal position set at naught by this court, in the aforesaid judgment, and judgments in other similar writ petitions it was held that it is not appropriate on the part of respondents to confine the permits to a particular area on the ground that more number of vehicles are occupying other W.P.(C). No.18953 of 2016 7 halt stations. Therefore, taking in to account the principles of law laid down by this court, I am inclined to quash Exts.P11 to P15, declining variation of the halting place sought for by the petitioners, being unsustainable. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed, Exts.P11 to P15 are quashed. 8. Therefore, there will be a direction to the competent among respondents 1 and 2 to re-consider the applications submitted by the petitioners seeking variation of the permit with respect to the halt station and consider the same in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, taking into account the law laid down by this court in the aforesaid judgments and in other connected writ petitions in that regard. Writ petition is allowed. Sd/- **SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE** smv 02.06.2016