High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-06-09Writ petition allowed.

Shafek L. and others v. State of Kerala and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.19854 of 2016 (F)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Shaji P. Chaly
Judgment Date: 2016-06-09
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition is allowed. Petitioners are at liberty to approach the competent respondents (2 and 3) seeking variation of permits with respect to halting station, parking and picking passengers. If such applications are filed within three weeks from today, respondents shall decide within one month thereafter after providing opportunity of hearing, taking into account the legal principles in Rajesh v. Secretary, RTA and the directions contained herein.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Shafek L.
Faizal E.L.
Rukhiya P.
Haris N.P.
Muneer M.
Hassainar
Abdul Jabbar T.
Pramod
Subair
Moideen Kunhi Kallath
RafeeK K.P.
Sumayya P.
Abdulla Kunhi C.H.
Abdul Ame er S.K.
Abdul Shafeek K.
Abdul Khader K.
Iqbal M.P.
Rasheed K., S/O.ABDUL RASHEED
Faleel A.V.
Rasheed K., S/O.MOIDEEN KUNHI

Respondents

STATE OF KERALA, represented by its Secretary, Motor Vehicles Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695 001
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 121
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 121

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Suresh Kumar Kodoth
• K.P. Antony Binu

Counsels for Respondents

• K.A. Sanjeetha

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition, filed by twenty registered auto-rickshaw owners in Kasaragod district, challenges the restrictive conditions imposed in their contract carriage permits (Exts. P21 to P40), which allegedly limit plying within the town area. The petitioners contend the restrictions are illegal fetters on their livelihood and the right to operate their vehicles in the town. They list the vehicles by registration numbers to emphasize the breadth of impact. The petition relies on a line of decisions including Rajesh v. Secretary, RTA (2014 (3) KLT 341), arguing that the Motor Vehicles Act does not authorize statutory authorities to impose such area-based restrictions; under Section 74(3)(a) only the State Government can issue area-limiting notifications. The respondents’ counsel (Government Pleader) counters the need for regulatory controls to ensure orderly traffic, public safety, and to align with urban planning considerations. The judge carefully examines whether authorities possess power to incorporate permit stipulations restricting operations in city limits, citing prior jurisprudence. Ultimately, the court accepts the petitioners’ premise and, relying on Rajesh and related precedents, directs that petitioners’ applications for variation of permits concerning halting stations, parking and passenger pickup be considered within three weeks, with a decision within one month after hearing. The writ is allowed, subject to compliant variation procedures.

Provisions of Law Cited

Motor Vehicles Act, Section 74(3)(a)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that the restrictive conditions in Exts. P21 to P40 are illegal and fetter the right to operate autorickshaws in the town area. They rely on the Motor Vehicles Act and on Rajesh v. Secretary, RTA (2014 (3) KLT 341) to argue that permit restrictions can only be enforced through State Government action under Section 74(3)(a), not by RTA/RTO. They seek variation of permits concerning halting stations, parking and passenger pickup and request quashing of the restrictions or directing lawful variation after due process. The broad objective is to restore livelihood opportunities for the petitioners while still allowing orderly urban transport planning.

Contentions of Respondents

The Government Pleader represents the State respondents. The respondents’ arguments center on the necessity of regulatory control over town-area transport operations to ensure safety, compliance with urban traffic planning, and the proper execution of permit conditions under the Motor Vehicles Act. They emphasize statutory power to impose appropriate restrictions and to regulate contract carriage operations, while acknowledging the available remedy of applying for permit variation under due procedure.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Rajesh v. Secretary, RTA	2014 (3) KLT 341	Positive	Cited as controlling authority for the proposition that the Motor Vehicles Act does not empower the authorities to impose restrictions in permits; the current judgment relies on this principle to permit variation proceedings.

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 Shafek L. and others v. State of Kerala and others 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 SHAJI P.CHALY** **THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/19TH JYAISHTA, 1938** ## **WP(C).No. 19854 of 2016 (F)** ## **----------------------------** **PETITIONER(S): ------------------------** **1. SHAFEK L., S/O.MARIYAM, SHAMEEL MANZIL, PADNAKAD P.O., KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **2. FAIZAL E.L., S/O.MOHAMMED KUNHI E.L, FAIZAL MANZIL, THOYAMMAL BALLA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **3. RUKHIYA P.,** - **W/O. P.MOIDU, SAFEER MANZIL, OZHINAVALAPPU P.O., KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** ## **4. HARIS N.P.,** - **S/O.ABOOBACKER, PUNJAVI, OZHINAVALAPPU P.O., KANHANGAD P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** ## **5. MUNEER M.,** - **MUHAMMED M.V, FATHIMA MANZIL, AVIYIL, KANHANGAD P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **6. HASSAINAR, S/O.ABDULLA, PADNEKKAD P.O., HOSDURG, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **7. ABDUL JABBAR T., S/O.ALAVI, NEAR BAVA MASJID ROAD, KANHANGAD, KADAPPURAM, P.O.KANHANGAD,** **KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** ## **8. PRAMOD,** - **S/O.CHITHRANGATHAN, HOSDURG BEACH, P.O.KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **9. SUBAIR, S/O.AYSABI K., ARANGADI P.O., KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **10. MOIDEEN KUNHI KALLATH, S/O.PATHUNHI, MUBI MANZIL, KALLURAVI, HOSDURG, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **2/-** **-2-** ## **WP(C).NO.19854/2016** ## **11. RAFEEK K.P., S/O.ERAMULLAN, PUTHIYAVEEDU, KADAPURAM SOUTH P.O., KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** ## **12. SUMAYYA P.,** **S/O.SULAIMAN P.P., NOORJAHAN MANZIL, P.O.PADNAKKAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** ## **13. ABDULLA KUNHI C.H.,S/O.HASSAINAR, AMBALATHARA, ECHIKANAM P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** ## **14. ABDUL AMEER S.K.,** **S/O.SHEIK MUMTHAZ BEEGUM, PALLIPUZHA, PADANNAKKAD P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** ## **15. ABDUL SHAFEEK K., S/O.BEEPATHUMMA, KADAVATH P.O., KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** ## **16. ABDUL KHADER K.,** - **S/O.HASSAINAR K., BALLA KADAPPURAM, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** ## **17. IQBAL M.P.,** ## **S/O.MOHAMMED KUNHI, MUNEERA MANZIL, HOSDURG KADAPUURAM, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** ## **18. RASHEED K.,** - **S/O.MOIDEEN KUNHI, PVR QUARTERS, TB ROAD, KANHANGAD P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **19. FALEEL A.V., S/O.IBRAHIM A.V., AVIYIL, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** ## **20. RASHEED K.,** **S/O.ABDUL RASHEED, VADAKARAMUKKU, KANHANGAD P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADVS.SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH SRI.K.P.ANTONY BINU** **RESPONDENT(S):** - **-----------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MOTOR VEHICLES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001** **3/-** **-3-** ## **WP(C).NO.19854/2016** ## **2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,** - **KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 121.** ## **3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT- 671 121.** **BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.A.SANJEETHA** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** ## **WP(C).No. 19854 of 2016 (F) -----------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS -----------------------------------------** - **P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-C-3912.** - **P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-J-8526.** - **P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-H-6259** - **P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-A-7913** - **P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-J-5451** - **P6 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-J-3265 P7 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-14-D-936.** - **P8 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-J-175** - **P9 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60--E-7105 P10 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-K-6891. P11 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-14-D-4476.** - **P12 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-J-5936. P13 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL 60-F-8124. P14 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-C-2937.** - **P15 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-E-1610.** - **P16 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-G-3630.** - **P17 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-H-9708.** - **P18 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-G-9196.** - **P19 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-H-902.** - **P20 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-60-A-5223.** - **P21 TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 1ST PETITIONER.** - **P22 TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 2ND PETITIONER.** - **P23 TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 3RD PETITIONER.** **2/-** **-2-** ## **WP(C).NO.19854/2016** - **P24 TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 4TH PETITIONER.** - **P25 TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 5TH PETITIONER.** - **P26 TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 6TH PETITIONER.** - **P27 TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 7TH PETITIONER.** - **P28 TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 8TH PETITIONER.** - **P29 TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 9TH PETITIONER.** - **P30 TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 10TH PETITIONER.** - **P31 TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 11TH PETITIONER.** - **P32 TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 12TH PETITIONER.** - **P33 TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 13TH PETITIONER.** - **P34 TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 14TH PETITIONER.** - **P35 TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 15TH PETITIONER.** - **P36 TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 16TH PETITIONER.** - **P37 TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 17TH PETITIONER.** - **P38 TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 18TH PETITIONER.** - **P39 TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 19TH PETITIONER.** **3/-** **-3-** ## **WP(C).NO.19854/2016** **P40 TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO 20TH PETITIONER.** **P41 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 1-6-16 IN WPC.NO. 18155/2016.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL** **--------------------------------------------** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **sts** ## **SHAJI P. CHALY, J. ----------------------------------------------W.P.(C). No.19854 of 2016** ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 9[th] day of June, 2016 ## **JUDGMENT** This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to quash restrictive conditions in regard to parking and picking passengers in Exts.P21 to P40 contract carriage permits and for other related reliefs. 2. Brief facts for the disposal of the writ petition are thus:- petitioners are registered owners of autorickshaws in Kasaragod District on valid permits. Petitioners 1 to 20 are permanently residing in the area. Petitioners applied for permit to operate their autorickshaws in the town area to earn their livelihood. But when permits were issued, they carry restrictive conditions curtailing plying in the town area. It is thus aggrieved by the conditions imposed in their respective permits, evident from Exts.P21 to P40, petitioners have approached this court. Petitioners are owners of autorickshaws bearing Nos.KL-60-C-3912, KL-60-J-8526, KL- W.P.(C). No.19854 of 2016 2 60-H-6259, KL-60-A-7913, Kl-60-J-5451, KL-60-J-3265, KL-14D-936, KL-60-J-175, KL-60-E-7105, KL-60-K-6891, KL-14-D4476, Kl-60-J-5936, KL-60-F-8124, KL-60-C-2937, KL-60-E1610, KL-60-G-3630, KL-60-H-9708, KL-60-G-9196, KL-60-H902 and KL-60-A-5223. It is the contention of the petitioners that the conditions incorporated in the permits besides being illegal, create unnecessary fetters on the right of the petitioners to operate their vehicles in the town area. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. 4. Having heard the rival submissions, perusal of pleadings and records, I am of the considered opinion that the issue to be considered in this case is whether the respondent statutory authorities are vested with power to incorporate the stipulations in the permits by restricting the operations of the vehicles owned by the petitioners within the city limits. A learned Single Judge of this court had occasion to consider the said issue in the judgment in **Rajesh v. Secretary, RTA** [2014 (3) KLT 341] and held that the respondent statutory authorities are not having power under the Motor Vehicles Act to impose conditions restricting permits and by virtue of Section 74 (3) (a) only State Government is empowered to W.P.(C). No.19854 of 2016 3 issue notification limiting issuance of permits with reference to the area. Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioners that the conditions imposed in Exts.P21 to P40, permits by virtue of the legal propositions laid down by this court in the decision cited supra are illegal and unsustainable. In the light of the judgment referred above and other judgments of this court laying down the principle, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners are at liberty to approach the competent among respondents 2 and 3 seeking variation of permits with respect to the halting station, parking and picking passengers. If such applications are filed by the petitioners within a period of three weeks from today, respondents 2 and 3 shall take a decision on the same within a further period of one month thereafter, taking into account the legal principles laid down by this court in the judgment cited supra and the directions contained herein, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Writ petition is allowed accordingly. ## **Sd/-** ## **SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.** dlk/9/6/