High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2015-08-21Disposed of with directions to reconsider and p...

Ravindranath and Others v. Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur and The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur and Thrissur Corporation

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 26142 of 2015 (P)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A.V. Ramakrishna Pillai
Judgment Date: 2015-08-21
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition disposed of with directions. The Regional Transport Authority is to reconsider the applicants’ applications for contract carriage permits allowing entry into the Thrissur Corporation limits and to pass positive orders within one month from receipt of a copy of the judgment, in light of the reasoning and statutory provisions cited.
Final Disposition: Disposed of with directions to reconsider and pass positive orders within one month

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

RAVINDRANATH
JAYAPRAKASH V.B.
LATHA
VIMOD K.D.
RAPPAI P.I.
ANIL KUMAR
SHAJI
AJEENA
FRANCIS
SIJO J THATTIL
VINESH K.V.
MANOJ KUMAR
SUNIL KUMAR
AJYAN

Respondents

The Regional Transport Authority
The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur-680001
Thrissur Corporation represented by the Secretary, Thrissur-680001

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri O.D. Sivadas

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri K.P.Vijayan
• Sri V.N. Haridas
• Smt.Sangeetha K.A., Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

Petitioners are 14 registered auto-rickshaw owners challenging a condition attached to contract carriage permits by the District Collector, which prohibits their vehicles from parking or picking up passengers within the local limits of Thrissur Corporation despite permission to operate on all fit roads. They contend that Section 74(3) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act governs the grant of contract carriage permits and that no government notification limits the number of autorickshaws in Thrissur Corporation; therefore, Ext.P1–Ext.P14 permits and Ext.P15–Ext.P28 proceedings restricting entry into the city limits are illegal. The petition emphasizes that the existing pool of permits cannot be restricted by numerical quotas imposed by the Regional Transport Authority (RTA) without statutory backing. The respondents rely on administrative circulars and standard regulatory practices, but the court notes a prior decision in Rajesh v Secretary, RTA, which holds that an RTA cannot fix blanket permit numbers in an area and such quotas must be prescribed by the State Government via notification. After hearing the parties, the court holds that the petition is prima facie sustainable and disposes of the writ petition by directing the RTA to reconsider the applicants’ permit applications and to pass positive orders within one month, allowing entry into the Thrissur Corporation limits if otherwise permissible, in light of the cited authorities and statutory provisions.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 74(3) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

RTA cannot impose blanket permit quotas in a region; such quotas require State Government notification under the MV Act.
Section 74(3) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act governs grant of contract carriage permits and the need for statutory backing for any quotas or restrictions.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that there is no notification fixing the number of autorickshaws in Thrissur Corporation and that the District Collector cannot impose a restriction restricting entry into local limits without statutory backing; Ext.P1–P14 permits were issued under the MV Act, and Ext.P15–P28 proceedings denying entry are illegal. They rely on Section 74(3) of the MV Act and the Rajesh decision to challenge the quota-based restriction.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the District Collector’s condition is a legitimate regulatory measure in the interests of traffic management and that government circulars and policy considerations can justify restrictions; they argue that permits and their administration may be guided by Circulars and regulatory frameworks within the MV Act.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Rajesh v Secretary, RTA	2014(3) KLT 341	Positive	Court follows Rajesh to hold that RTA cannot fix blanket permit numbers; such quotas require State Government notification.
W.P.(C) No.12993 of 2015	W.P.(C) No.12993 of 2015	Mentioned Only	Referenced as a similar fact situation; the judgment does not articulate a specific treatment of this citation.

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 Ravindranath and Others v. Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur and The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur and Thrissur Corporation 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.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI** **FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2015/30TH SRAVANA, 1937** **WP(C).No. 26142 of 2015 (P) ----------------------------** **PETITIONER(S):** **-------------** - **1.RAVINDRANATH, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. PARAMESWARAN, 13/320, MANKUZHI HOUSE, KOORKANCHERRY GP, CHIYYARAM P.O., THRISSUR-680026.** - **2.JAYAPRAKASH V.B., S/O.BALAN, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.KANIMANGALAM, THRISSUR-680027.** - **3.LATHA, D/O.AMMINI AMMA, 287/15/EDATHIL HOUSE, KOORKANCHERRY, THRISSUR-680026.** - **4.VIMOD K.D., S/O.DHARMARAJAN K.V. KUMBALAPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHIYYARAM P O, THRISSUR-680026.** - **5.RAPPAI P.I., S/O.KUNJUVAREETH, PUTHUR HOUSE, P.O.CHIYYARAM, THRISSUR-680026.** - **6.ANIL KUMAR, S/O.ANANTHAN, 15/392, KUTTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.CHIYYARAM, THRISSUR-680026.** - **7.SHAJI, S/O.OUSEPH, THARAYIL KALLUTTUZHI HOUSE, CHIYYARAM P O, THRISSUR-680026.** - **8.AJEENA, W/O.MANOJ, 15/672 KAINOOR HOUSE, P O CHIYYARAM, THRISSUR-680026.** - **9.FRANCIS, S/O.VARGHESE, 10/790 CHAMMANAM HOUSE, CHIYYARAM P O, THRISSUR-680026.** - **10.SIJO J THATTIL, S/O.JOSE, 15/317A (42/1212), THATTIL HOUSE, CHIYYARAM P O, THRISSUR-680026.** - **11.VINESH K.V., S/O.VALSALAN, 13/433 (30/932), KOZHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHIYYARAM P O, THRISSUR-680026.** **Contd...2** **- 2 -** ## **WP(C).No. 26142 of 2015 (P)** - **12.MANOJ KUMAR, S/O.VIJAYAN, KUMBALAPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHIYYARA P O, THRISSUR-680026.** - **13.SUNIL KUMAR, S/O.SANKU, NELLATT HOUSE, CHIYYARAM P O, THRISSUR-680026.** - **14.AJYAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, KOZHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHIYYARAM P O, THRISSUR-680026.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS** ## **RESPONDENTS** ## **1.THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,** ## **2.THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR-680001.** - **3.THRISSUR CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, THRISSUR-680001.** **R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.VIJAYAN R3 BY ADV. SRI.V.N.HARIDAS** **BY ADV.SMT.SANGEETHA K.A.,GOVERNMENT PLEADER R BY SRI.K.P.VIJAYAN,SC,THRISSUR CORPORATION** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-08-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C).No. 26142 of 2015 (P)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :** **EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED TO the 1[st] PETITIONER. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED TO the 2[nd] PETITIONER. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED TO the 3[rd] PETITIONER. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED TO the 4[th] PETITIONER. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED TO the 5[th] PETITIONER. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED TO the 6[th] PETITIONER. EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED TO the 7[th] PETITIONER. EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED TO the 8[th] PETITIONER. EXT.P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED TO the 9[th] PETITIONER. EXT.10 : TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED TO the 10[th] PETITIONER. EXT.P11 : TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED TO the 11[th] PETITIONER. EXT.P12 : TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED TO the 12[th] PETITIONER. EXT.P13 : TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED TO the 13[th] PETITIONER. EXT.P14 : TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED TO the 14[th] PETITIONER.** **EXT.P15 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 27.3.2015 ISSUED TO the 1[st] PETITIONER.** **EXT.P16 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 12.2.2015 ISSUED TO the 2[nd] PETITIONER.** **EXT.P17 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 7.4.2015 ISSUED TO the 3[rd] PETITIONER.** **EXT.P18 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 12.2.2015 ISSUED TO the 4[th] PETITIONER.** **EXT.P19 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 12.2.2015 ISSUED TO the 5[th] PETITIONER.** **EXT.P20 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 12.2.2015 ISSUED TO the 6[th] PETITIONER.** **EXT.P21 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 12.2.2015 ISSUED TO the 7[th] PETITIONER.** **EXT.P22 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 12.2.2015 ISSUED TO the 8[th] PETITIONER.** **EXT.P23 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 12.2.2015 ISSUED TO the** **9[th] PETITIONER.** **Contd....2** ## **WP(C).No. 26142 of 2015 (P)** **- 2 -** **EXT.P24 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 12.2.2015 ISSUED TO the 10[th] PETITIONER.** **EXT.P25 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 12.2.2015 ISSUED TO the 11[th] PETITIONER.** **EXT.P26 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 12.2.2015 ISSUED TO the 12[th] PETITIONER.** **EXT.P27 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 12.2.2015 ISSUED TO the 13[th] PETITIONER.** **EXT.P28 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 12.2.2015 ISSUED TO the 14[th] PETITIONER.** ## **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **ami/** ## **A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.** = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P(C) No.26142 of 2015 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 21[st] day of August, 2015 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners in this writ petition are aggrieved by the condition imposed by the District Collector while he has issued contract carriage permit to the petitioners vehicle for all fit roads in Thrissur Corporation subject to the condition that the vehicle shall not be parked or it shall not pick the passengers from the local limits of the city. 2. The petitioners are the registered owners of autorickshaw bearing No.KL 48/8059, KL 08 AZ/3716, KL 08 F/723, KL 08 BE/2401, KL 08 AM/3706, KL 08 BC/331, KL 08 AX/9725, KL-08 AW/6036, KL-08 BA/8542, KL-08 AU/7640, KL-08 AV/8870, KL-08 BE/632, KL-08 BD/4571 and KL-08 AP/9486. Originally Thrissur was a Municipality. Thrissur Corporation was established subsequently and territorial limits of the Municipality was extended by adding the neighbouring panchayats. The place of residence of the W.P(C) No.26142 of 2015 2 petitioners do not form part of the original Thrissur Municipality. However, on account of widening of the territorial limits, the petitioners' residential place became within the limits of the Thrissur Corporation. Section 74(3) of the M.V.Act governs the grant of contract carriage permits and there is no notification issued by the government limiting the number of autorickshaws in Thrissur Corporation, without which the Motor Vehicle authorities cannot impose a condition as made in Ext.P1 to Ext.P14 permits. Similarly, the respondents 1 and 2 cannot issue Ext.P15 to P28 proceedings denying the request of the petitioners for entering the limits of Thrissur Corporation and taking passengers. The present proceedings issued by the 2[nd] respondent are per se illegal and the same are liable to be interfered by this Court. It is with this backdrop, the petitioners have approached this Court. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners W.P(C) No.26142 of 2015 3 and the learned Government Pleader in the matter. 4. This Court had occasion to consider similar fact situation in WPC No.12993/2015. Though the District Collector in the district concerned is to be guided by Section 74 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act, he has imposed the restriction which is challenged in this writ petitions on the basis of a circular issued by the Transport Commissioner. This Court in **Rajesh** v **Secretary, RTA** (2014(3) KLT 341) has held that the Regional Transport authority cannot make a general order that only a certain number of permits would be granted in an area. The mere existence of a number of permits and the decision by the Regional Transport Authority or a higher authority to restrict the grant based on numbers alone would fall foul, since such limits could be prescribed only by the State Government under a notification; so found this Court in the aforesaid decision. Therefore,the condition imposed shall not be allowed to stand. W.P(C) No.26142 of 2015 4 In the result, this writ petition is disposed of directing the Regional Transport Authority to reconsider the issue on the application submitted by the petitioners for the grant of contract carriage permits for their vehicles seeking permission to park within the local limits of the Thrissur Corporation and to pass positive orders within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, in the light of what has been stated above. Sd/- **A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, Judge.** ami/ //True copy// P.A. to Judge