Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeDisposed of with directions as stated (petition...

null

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 16913 of 2016 (L)
Neutral Citation:null

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • ANIL K.NARENDRAN
Judgment Date
2016-05-06
Court Decision / Holding
Petition disposed with directions. If petitioners file appropriate applications before the 3rd respondent within two weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the judgment, the 3rd respondent shall consider such applications strictly in accordance with law and after giving notice to the petitioners, expeditiously, at any rate within two months from receipt of the applications. Petitioners may raise all legal contentions before the 3rd respondent.
Final Disposition
Disposed of with directions as stated (petitions to file applications before 3rd respondent; expeditious consideration within two months; notice to petitioners; right to raise all contentions).

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • ABDULLA C.H.
  • RATNAKARAN P
  • AHAMED KUNHI C
  • MIYANATH AHAMMED
  • MOHAMMED SAIDALI
  • HYDER
  • NISSAM MH
  • ABDUL JALEEL
  • ZEENATH
  • KHADEEJA
  • SHAMSUDEEN MADAM VILLATH
  • KUNHABDULLA BK
  • MUHAMMED KUNHI
  • ABOOBACKER
  • HAMSA T.M.
  • NOUSHAD C

Respondents

  • STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MOTOR VEHICLES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
  • THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, 671 121
  • THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, 671 121

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Adv. Sri.K.P.ANTONY BINU

Counsels for Respondents

  • • SRI. MUHAMMED SHAFI

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition (WP(C).No. 16913 of 2016) before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam concerns 16 petitioners who operate autorickshaws in Kasaragod district. Each petitioner holds a certificate of registration (Exts.P1–P16) and several contract carriage permits (Exts.P17–P32), all subject to the condition that the vehicles shall not park or pick up passengers within the City. The petitioners seek a variation of these permit conditions to enable pickup and parking within the city limits. They rely on a precedent set by Rajesh v. Secretary, RTA (2014 (3) KLT 341). The petition is argued with the Government Pleader representing the respondents. The Court records that, for any variation in Exts.P17–P32, the petitioners must file appropriate applications before the 3rd respondent (Regional Transport Authority). The Court directs that if such applications are filed within two weeks of receiving a certified copy of the judgment, the 3rd respondent shall consider them strictly in accordance with law, with notice to the petitioners, and dispose of the matter expeditiously, within two months from receipt of the applications. The petitioners are allowed to raise all legal contentions before the 3rd respondent. The judgment is delivered by Hon’ble Justice Anil K. Narendran on 6 May 2016.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that the autorickshaws, though presently governed by permits with a restriction against loading or boarding within the City, should be allowed to operate in City limits in view of the need for urban transport mobility and to meet public demand. They rely on Rajesh v. Secretary, RTA (2014 (3) KLT 341) as a precedent supporting permit variation. They submit that a formal process for variation should be available by filing appropriate applications, with notice and a timely decision, to enable them to continue operations without unreasonable restriction.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents maintain that permit conditions are to be followed, and any variation must be sought through proper statutory processes before the 3rd respondent. They emphasize adherence to law and the existing regulatory framework for contract carriage, arguing that the petition should be resolved through the prescribed administrative procedure rather than a grant of blanket relief. They rely on keeping city-based prohibitions unless legally varied through due process.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Rajesh v. Secretary, RTA2014 (3) KLT 341Mentioned OnlyCited in the judgment as a precedent used to support the petitioners' position on permit variation, but the judgment does not discuss or apply its ratio in detail.
JUDGMENT DATED 28/10/2015 IN WPC NO.31993/2015WPC No. 31993/2015Mentioned OnlyReferenced via Exhibit P33; the document notes the existence of this earlier judgment but does not elaborate on its ratio or application within the decision.

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 null 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 ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MAY 2016/16TH VAISAKHA, 1938** **WP(C).No. 16913 of 2016 (L) ----------------------------** **PETITIONER(S): -------------** ## **1. ABDULLA C.H.** - **S/O.T.AHAMMED, AL AMEEN MANZIL, NEAR FAROOQ MASJID, PADNAKKAD P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **2. RATNAKARAN P** - **S/O.KELU NAIR, PALLIVAYAL, NELLIKATTU, BALLA P.O., HOSDURG, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** ## **3. AHAMED KUNHI C** - **S/O.ASSAINAR, KANHANGAD BEACH, KANHANGAD P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **4. MIYANATH AHAMMED,** - **S/O.A.V.MOIDEENKOYA, KUSHALNAGAR, KANHANGAD P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **5. MOHAMMED SAIDALI** - **S/O.MUHAMMED KUNDANA HOUSE, UPPILIKAI, KANHANGAD, KASARARGOD DISTRICT.** **6. HYDER, S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN ARANGADI, KANHANGAD P.O., HOSDURG, KASARGOD DISTRICT.** **7. NISSAM MH,** - **S/O.HASSAN, SHAKKEEL MANZIL, KOVVALPALLY, KANHANGAD P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **8. ABDUL JALEEL** - **S/O.ASSANKUNHI, MANGOOL HOUSE, BALLAKADAPPURAM, KANHANGAD, KANHANGAD P.O., KASARGOD DISTRICT.** ## **WP(C).No. 16913 of 2016 (L)** ## **9. ZEENATH** - **W/O.SHAFI, THOYAMMAL, BALLA P.O., KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** ## **10. KHADEEJA** - **W/O.MAJEED, KARIVALAM, P.O.PADNAKAD, KASARGOD DISTRICT** ## **11. SHAMSUDEEN MADAM VILLATH** **S/O.MUHAMMED KM, AVIYIL HOUSE, HOSDURG, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** ## **12. KUNHABDULLA BK** **S/O.MOIDU CHEENAMADATH, AISHA MANZIL, KANHANGAD SOUTH P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **13. MUHAMMED KUNHI** - **IBRAHAIM K.M, KM HOUSE, PUNJAVI, OZHINJAVALAPPU, HOSDURG, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **14. ABOOBACKER** - **S/O.NAFEESA C.P, KANHANGAD OLD BEACH, KANHANGAD SOUTH P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **15. HAMSA T.M.,S/O.IBRAHIM,** **OZHINJAVALAPPU P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** ## **16. NOUSHAD C** - **S/O.DAINABI MV, AVIYIL HOUSE, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.K.P.ANTONY BINU** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** - **--------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MOTOR VEHICLES DEPARTMENT,** **GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, 671 121.** **WP(C).No. 16913 of 2016 (L)** ## **3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY** **KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, 671 121.** **R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MUHAMMED SHAFI** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **bp** **WP(C).No. 16913 of 2016 (L)** **----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS -----------------------** **P1: TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-A-4544 P2: TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-B-2302.** - **P3: TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-E 6440** - **P4: TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-A 8807.** - **P5: TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-B-3946.** - **P6: TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-B-3713** - **P7: TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-C-976** - **P8: TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-14-G-2335.** - **P9: TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-E- 9839** - **P10 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-B-5176** - **P11: TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-5201** - **P12: TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-A-6147** - **P13: TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-B-9979** - **P14: TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-A-7823** - **P15: TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-H-3623** ## **WP(C).NO. 16913 OF 2016 (L)** **P16: TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-7402 P17: TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 1ST PETITIONER. P18: TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 2ND PETITIONER. P19: TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 3RD PETITIONER. P20: TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 4TH PETITIONER. P21: TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 5TH PETITIONER. P22: TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 6TH PETITIONER P23: TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 7TH PETITIONER P24: TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 8TH PETITIONER P25: TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 9TH PETITIONER P26: TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 10TH PETITIONER P27: TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 11TH PETITIONER P28: TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 12TH PETITIONER P29: TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 13TH PETITIONER P30: TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 14TH PETITIONER** **WP(C).NO. 16913 OF 2016 (L)** **P31: TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 15TH PETITIONER** **P32: TRUE COPY OF CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 16TH PETITIONER** **P33 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 28/10/2015 IN WPC NO.31993/2015** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **: NIL.** ## **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **bp** ## **ANIL K.NARENDRAN, J.** **-----------------------------------------------W.P.(C)No.16913 of 2016** **------------------------------------------------DATED THIS THE 6[th ] DAY OF MAY, 2016** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners are operating autorickshaws covered by Exts.P1 to P16 certificates of registration and on the strength of Exts.P17 to P32 contract carriage permits in Kasaragod district subject to the condition that the vehicles shall not park or pick up passengers within the City. The petitioners seek variation of conditions of permit in respect of their autorickshaws. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of this Court in **Rajesh v. Secretary, RTA (2014 (3) KLT 341)** . 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. In order to effect variation in Exts.P17 to P32 contract carriage permits, it is for the petitioners to move appropriate applications before the 3[rd] respondent. If any such applications are filed by the petitioners within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, such application shall be dealt with by the 3[rd] respondent, strictly in accordance with law, with W.P.(C).No.16913/16 -2- notice to the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such applications. It would be open to the petitioners to raise all legal contentions before the 3[rd] respondent. ## Sd/- **ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE** dsn True copy P.S. to Judge