Reesh C. v. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **FRIDAY ,THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No. 7294 of 2019** **PETITIONER:** **REESH.C AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.VELAYUDHAN,CHAKKUNGAL HOUSE, KARINKALLATHANI,PARAPPANANGADI.P.O, TIRUR,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.SAJU J.VALLYARA** ## **RESPONDENT:** **THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM, PIN-676505.** ## **SRI K.P.HARISH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ``` WP(C).No. 7294 of 2019 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **`JUDGMENT`** ``` The petitioner is the holder of Ext.P1 regular permit in respect of stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-55/A-630 on the route Tanur – Kozhikode, which is valid upto 22.09.2010. The said vehicle is a 2006 model vehicle. According to the petitioner, now he has acquired a 2013 model vehicle, bearing registration No.KL-58/K-6525 obtained from one Sadanandan and made an application for renewal of lease agreement, by submitting Ext.P3 request dated 01.02.2019. Now the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P3 request submitted by the petitioner for granting permission to renew the lease agreement in respect of vehicle bearing registration No.KL-58/K-6525 operating on the route Tanur – Kozhikode as per Ext.P1 regular permit. ``` ``` 2. On 12.03.2019, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Senior Government Pleader was directed to get instructions. ``` `3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the` ``` WP(C).No. 7294 of 2019 ``` ``` 3 ``` ``` learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. ``` ``` 4.The learned Government Pleader would submit that the respondent shall consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 application for renewal of the lease agreement within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. ``` ``` 5. InUsha Nanthini M. V. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad & another [2018 (2) KHC 89] this Court held that, in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench in Regional Transport Authority and another ``` ``` v. Shaju [ILR 2017 (3) Kerala 720], no request made by a permit holder for replacement of vehicle can be declined merely for the reason that the incoming vehicle is an older model, subject, of course, to the older model vehicle being certified as roadworthy. This Court, after referring to the decision of the Apex Court in M.C. Metha v Union of India [(1997) 8 SCC 770],wherein it was held that the requirement of maintaining the motor vehicles in the manner prescribed and its use if roadworthy in a manner which does not endanger public, has to ``` ``` WP(C).No. 7294 of 2019 ``` ``` 4 ``` ``` be ensured by the authorities and this is the aim of the provisions enacted in the Motor Vehicles Act; and also the provisions under Section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act, (which deals with certification of fitness of transport vehicles) and Rule 62 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, (which deals with validity of certificate of fitness)held that, a vehicle which no ``` ``` longer complies with all the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules made thereunder cannot be permitted to be driven or plied on the road. Therefore, road worthiness and viability of the incoming vehicle shall be the consideration in an application for replacement, rather than the model of the incoming vehicle. ``` ``` 6.In Jijith v. State of Kerala and others [2019 (1) KHC 463], this Court held that a transport vehicle fitted with unauthorised lights cannot be treated as a vehicle which complies with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Rules made thereunder, for the purpose of grant of certificate of fitness. The paintwork of every transport vehicle shall be maintained in a clean and sound condition, as ``` ``` WP(C).No. 7294 of 2019 ``` ``` 5 ``` ``` contemplated by Rule 264 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. While approving the matter intended to be exhibited on the vehicle, in exercise of the powers under sub-rule (2) of Rule 191 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, the State or the Regional Transport Authority shall ensure that it does not cause distractionto the drivers of other vehicles and also cyclists and - pedestrians on public road. No approval under subrule (2) of Rule 191, shall be granted for exhibition of any advertisements, writings, fgures, graphics, etc.on the body of a transport vehicle, at places intended for exhibiting the name and address of the operator as per clause (g) of Section 84 of the Motor Vehicles Act; the 'emergency information panel' as per Rule 134 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules for goods carriages used for transporting any dangerous or hazardous goods; the particulars enumerated in clauses (a) to (g) of Rule 93 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules; the name of the institution exhibited in educational institution bus and private service vehicle as per Rule 291 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules; etc. In the case of a stage carriage in respect of which uniform colour scheme has ``` ``` WP(C).No. 7294 of 2019 ``` ``` 6 ``` ``` been implemented under Rule 264 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, vide the decision of the State Transport Authority dated 04.01.2018, no approval under sub-rule (2) of Rule 191, shall be granted for exhibition of any advertisements, writings, figures, graphics, etc., over the three equally spaced white lines painted below the height of the wheel arch. In the said decision, this Court held further that exhibition of writings or fgures with the sole object to invite public attention and to promote the contract carriage or stage carriage service should not be permitted by levying fee under Rule 191 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. ``` ``` 7. In Jijith's case supra this Court held further that, in view of the provisions under Rule 100 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, tampering with the percentage of visual transmission of light of the safety glass of the windscreen, rear window and side windows of a motor vehicle, either by pasting any material upon the safety glass or by fxing sliding 'cloth curtains', etc. are legally impermissible. In view of the provisions under Rule 50 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, the registration mark on the right and left side of every ``` ``` WP(C).No. 7294 of 2019 ``` ``` 7 ``` ``` transport vehicle has to be painted on the bodyand it has to be displayed as per Rule 50 read with Rule 51, at the specified place, in the manner specified in those rules. ``` ``` 8.InKerala Bus Transport Association v. Government of Kerala (2018 (4) KLT 947), this Court held that the provisions under the Kerala Motor Vehicles (2[nd] Amendment) Rules, 2016, are intended to ensure safe and convenient public transport facility to the passengers by reducing the chances of untoward incidents and as such, the said provisions are in the interest of the public at large. By the said judgment, this Court has directed that, the Police and the Transport authorities shall take necessary steps to ensure that all stage carriages, including stage carriages operating as town and city services are ftted with door shutters as mandated by sub-rule (2) of Rule 280 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules and that, appropriate proceedings shall be initiated against the owners/permit holders and also the employees of the stage carriages plying with door shutters either removed or tied to bus body and that, proceedings shall also be initiated against the ``` ``` WP(C).No. 7294 of 2019 ``` ``` 8 ``` ``` employees for opening or closing door shutters while the stage carriage is in motion. ``` ``` 9.In view of the law laid down by this Court in the decisions referred to supra, while considering Ext.P3 application for renewal of lease agreement, the respondent shall ensure that the vehicle in question complies with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules made thereunder, i.e., the vehicle is not fitted with any unauthorised lights; that it is painted in the uniform colour scheme, if any, specified under Rule 264 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules; that the safety glasses of the wind screen, rear window and side windows are maintained as per the mandate of Rule 100 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, without tampering the percentage of visual transmission of light, as specified in the said Rules; that the registration mark is displayed as per Rule 50 of the Central Motor vehicles Rules, read with Rule 51, at the specified places, in the manner specified in those Rules; that it is fitted with door shutters as mandated by sub-rule (2) of Rule 280 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules; etc. ``` ``` WP(C).No. 7294 of 2019 ``` ``` 9 ``` ``` 10.In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 application made by the petitioner for renewal of lease agreement of stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-58/K- 6525 after taking note of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra. ``` ``` A decision in this regard shall be taken, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, with notice to the petitioner and after affording him an opportunity of being heard. ``` ``` Sd/- ``` ## **`ANIL K.NARENDRAN`** ``` JUDGE ``` DK ``` WP(C).No. 7294 of 2019 ``` ``` 10 ``` ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT NO.P.ST.10/851/2000 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE VEHICLE REPLACEMENT IN LEASE AGREEMENT VIDE ENDT.NO.10/69415/2018 DATED 18.05.2018 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 01.02.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **PA TO JUDGE** DK