Salmath A. v. Regional Transport Authority, Kozhikode; Haridasan V.P. v. Regional Transport Authority, Kozhikode

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN`** ``` FRIDAY, THE 18[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 27TH SRAVANA, 1945 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 21697 OF 2023`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` SALMATH A, AGED 30 YEARS W/O. NAVAS A., ANJUVINTAKATH, MARADU, NEERMOONMIPARAMBU, ARAKINAR, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673 028. ``` ## **`BY ADV SRI. STALIN PETER DAVIS`** ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673 620.`** - **`2 SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673 620.`** - **`3 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CIVIL STATION, DOWN HILL, MALAPPURAM, PIN – 676 505.`** - **`4 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, CIVIL STATION, DOWN HILL, MALAPPURAM, PIN – 676 505.`** - **`*ADDL. HARIDASAN V. P, AGED 52 YEARS`** - **`R5 S/O. PARAMESWARAN V., VATTAMPLATH HOUSE, KADALUNDINAGARAM P.O , VALLIKKUNNU SUMATHI VIHAR BANKPADI, MALAPPURAM – 673 314.`** ``` *IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 3/8/2023 IN I.A 1/2023 IN WPC 21697/2023. ``` ``` BY ADV K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI. RIYAL DEVASSY - GP ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.08.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).22433/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C).Nos.21697 & 22433 OF 2023 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN FRIDAY, THE 18[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 27TH SRAVANA, 1945 ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 22433 OF 2023 ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` HARIDASAN V.P., AGED 52 YEARS S/O. PARAMESWARAN V., VATTAMPLATH HOUSE, KADALUNDINAGARAM P.O VALLIKKUNNU SUMATHI VIHAR BANKPADI MALAPPURM, PIN – 673 314. ``` ``` BY ADV K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE, GROUND FLOOR CIVIL STATION, WAYANAD RD, ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, PIN – 673 020.`** - **`2 THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE, GROUND FLOOR CIVIL STATION, WAYANAD RD, ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673 020.`** - **`3 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY MALAPPURAM, CIVIL STATION RD, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, PIN – 676 505.`** - **`4 SALMATH. A W/O. NAVAS A, ANJUVINTAKATH, MARADU, NEERMOONMIPARAMBU, ARAKKINAR, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673 028. BY ADV STALIN PETER DAVIS SRI. RIYAL DEVASSY - GP`** ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.08.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).21697/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C).Nos.21697 & 22433 OF 2023 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **`JUDGMENT`** Since common issues arise for consideration in these writ petitions, they are heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. The status of the parties and the exhibits referred to herein below shall be as obtaining in W.P.(C) No.21697 of 2023. 2. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.21697 of 2023 applied for a regular permit on an inter district route Pulimutt–Parappanagadi. Ext.P1 is the proceedings of the 1[st] respondent granting the permit subject to certain conditions. The decision of the 1[st] respondent, RTA, Kozhikode so far as it relates to the application of the petitioner for fresh regular inter district permit reads as follows:- “ **Decision of Regional Transport Authority Kozhikode dated 11.04.2023 vide Supplementary Item No.6** Heard. This is an application for fresh regular Stage permit on the inter district route ``` WP(C).Nos.21697 & 22433 OF 2023 ``` ``` 4 ``` Pulimutt-Parappanangadi (via) Beypore, BC Road, Cheruvannur, Feroke, Karuvanthiruthy, Chaliyam, Kadalundi Kadavu Palam, Aanangadi, Chettipadi and Parappanangadi Bridge as O.S. The objections were received in the meeting are 1. Overlap in the notified sector 2. Concurrence not obtained As per the report of field officer overlapping is not objectionable. There is no direct bus service on the PULIMUTT – PARAPPANANGADI route. The portion of the route from Kadalundi Kadavu to Parappanangadi 9.5 kms is lying in Malappuram District. Hence fresh permit is **granted** subject to 1. Obtain concurrence from sister RTA Malappuram 2. Settlement of timings. 3. Production of suitable stage carriage.” (underlining supplied by me) 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 3[rd] respondent, RTA, Malappuram, the sister authority is not granting concurrence to the granted regular permit. 4. While this writ petition was pending consideration, the additional 5[th] respondent, an existing stage carriage operator filed W.P.(C) ``` WP(C).Nos.21697 & 22433 OF 2023 ``` ``` 5 ``` No.22433 of 2023 challenging Ext.P1 (which is Ext.P2 in the later writ petition) on the ground that the grant of fresh regular permit in the inter district route without obtaining concurrence of the sister RTA is contrary to the provisions contained under Rule 171 (2) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Rule 171(2) reads as follows:- “ **171. Grant of regular permit for other regions without countersignature-** (2) The Regional Transport Authority granting a ‐ stage carriage permit under sub rule(1) shall, before granting the permit obtain the concurrence of the Regional Transport Authority or Regional Transport Authorities of the other ” region or regions concerned. ## (underlining supplied) 5. According to Sri.K.V.Gopinathan Nair, the learned counsel for the additional 5[th] respondent, by Ext.P1, fresh permit has been granted before obtaining concurrence of the RTA, Malappuram, the sister RTA and the same is in breach of the statutory provisions contained under Rule 171 (2). ``` WP(C).Nos.21697 & 22433 OF 2023 ``` ``` 6 ``` 6. Sri.Stalin Peter Davis, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that fresh permit has been granted subject to the concurrence from the sister RTA, Malappuram and there is no breach of any statutory provision and if at all Ext.P1 proceedings are bad it is for the petitioner to invoke the remedy available under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 7. Sri.K.V.Gopinathan Nair, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the Larger Bench decision in **Ratheesh v. R.T.A** [2015 (1) KLT 248] when there is grant in violation of any statutory provisions, the alternate remedy under Section 90 of revision need not be invoked and a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable. 8. Going through Ext.P1 proceedings of the RTA, Kozhikkode, it can be seen that a fresh regular ``` WP(C).Nos.21697 & 22433 OF 2023 ``` ``` 7 ``` permit on the inter district route has been granted. It is provided in Ext.P1 that the fresh permit is granted subject to concurrence of the RTA, Malappuram. Rule 171(2) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 provides that the RTA granting a stage carriage permit on an inter district route, shall, before granting the permit obtain the concurrence of the sister Regional Transport Authorities of the other regions concerned. Since Ext.P1 proceedings shows that the permit has been granted without obtaining the concurrence of the sister RTA, Malappuram, I am of the view that Ext.P1 cannot be sustained. 9. Sri.Stalin, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that under Section 88 of the Act there is a discretion on the RTA to grant permit without the concurrence of the sister RTA. Section 88 (1) of the Act reads as follows:- ``` WP(C).Nos.21697 & 22433 OF 2023 ``` ``` 8 ``` “ **88. Validation of permits for use outside region in which granted** .- (1) Except as may be otherwise prescribed, a permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority of any one region shall not be valid in any other region, unless the permit has been countersigned by the Regional Transport Authority of that other region, and a permit granted in any one State shall not be valid in any other State unless countersigned by the State Transport Authority of that other State or by the Regional Transport Authority concerned: Provided that a goods carriage permit, granted by the Regional Transport Authority of any one region, for any area in any other region or regions within the same State shall be valid in that area without the countersignature of the Regional Transport Authority of the other region or of each of the other regions concerned: Provided further that where both the starting point and the terminal point of a route are situate within the same State, but part of such route lies in any other State and the length of such part does not exceed sixteen kilometres, the permit shall be valid in the other State in respect of that part of the route which is in that other State notwithstanding that such permit has not been countersigned by the State Transport authority or the Regional Transport Authority of that other State: Provided also that— (a) where a motor vehicle covered by a permit granted in one State is to be used for the purposes of defence in any other State, such vehicle shall display a certificate, in such form, and issued by such Authority, as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify, to the effect that ``` WP(C).Nos.21697 & 22433 OF 2023 ``` ``` 9 ``` the vehicle shall be used for the period specified therein exclusively for the purposes of defence; and (b) any such permit shall be valid in that other State notwithstanding that such permit has not been countersigned by the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority of that other State.” (underlining supplied) 10. On a perusal of Section 88(1), it can be seen that a permit issued by an RTA of any one of the region in respect of an inter district permit shall not be valid in any other region unless the permit has been counter signed by the sister Regional Transport Authority of the other region. I am afraid that the provisions under Section 88 of the Act would not be of support to the contention of the petitioner. The requirements in Section 88(1) and Rule 171(2) differs. While Section 88(1) provides that a permit granted by the RTA of any one region shall not be valid in any other region, unless the permit has been countersigned by the RTA of the other region, Rule ``` WP(C).Nos.21697 & 22433 OF 2023 ``` ``` 10 ``` 171(2) provides that the RTA granting a permit shall before granting the permit obtain the concurrence of the RTA of the other regions concerned. Under Rule 171(2) obtaining concurrence is prerequisite for issuance of fresh regular permit on inter district routes. When Rule 171(2) specifically provides that permit shall be granted only after obtaining the concurrence of the sister RTA, no permit can be granted subject to any condition of obtaining concurrence of the sister RTA at a later stage. Accordingly, I find that Ext.P1 has been issued contrary to the statutory provisions under Rule 171(2) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1981 and the same is set aside in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The 1[st] respondent, the RTA, Kozhikode shall consider the application of the petitioner for regular stage carriage permit afresh in the next meeting of the RTA, in ``` WP(C).Nos.21697 & 22433 OF 2023 ``` ``` 11 ``` accordance with law. Orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petitions are disposed of with the above direction. **Sd/-** ``` MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE ``` SPR ``` WP(C).Nos.21697 & 22433 OF 2023 ``` ``` 12 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21697/2023`** ## **`PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS :-`** ``` EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 11/4/23GRANTINGTHEREGULAR APPLICATION. EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 19/6/2023. ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL.`** ``` WP(C).Nos.21697 & 22433 OF 2023 ``` ``` 13 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22433/2023`** ## **`PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:-`** ``` EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT DATED 06.10.2022 VALID TILL 04.09.2027. EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 11.04.2023. ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL.`**