Sibi v. Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur and Ors.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** **MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/4TH BHADRA, 1935** ## **WP(C).No. 16082 of 2013 (I)** **----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER :** **--------------------------** **SIBI, S/O. UNNIKRISHNAN, 31/126(130), POOKKATT, MANALUR P.O., THRISSUR.** **BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR** **RESPONDENT(S):** - **----------------------------** **1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN-680 001.** ## **2. THE SECRETARY,** **REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR-680 001.** **3. C.P.JOY, S/O. POULOSE, CHIRANELLUKKARAN, MADASSERY HOUSE, KANDASSANKAVADU P.O., THRISSUR-PIN-680 012.** **R1 & R2 BY SENIOR GOVERFNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.M.SANEER R3 BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN SMT.R.PADMAKUMARI** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** ## **WP(C).No. 16082 of 2013 (I)** ## **----------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** - **-------------------------------------** - **P1 : COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER ON THE ROUTE THRISSUR-GURUVAYUR IS AT PRESENT VALID UP TO 6.2.2018.** - **P2 : COPY OF THE REGISTRATION PARTICULARS IN RESPECT OF STAGE CARRIAGE KL-09/T 1800 SHOWING THAT THE SAID VEHICLE HAS BEEN ALREADY TRANSFERRED WITH EFFECT FROM 12.12.2011.** - **P3 : COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD.4.6.2012.** - **P4 : COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD.20.10.2012.** - **P5 : COPY OF THE REGISTRATION PARTICULARS IN RESPECT OF STAGE CARRIAGE KL-06/C 8013 WHICH HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED IN FAVOUR OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT ONLY ON 17.10.2012.** - **P6 : COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT FIXING THE TIMING CONFERENCE TO 28.6.2013 FOR THE 3RD RESPONDENT'S SERVICE.** - **P7: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE AGENDA OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 2/2/2012** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** - **-----------------------------------------** - **R3(A): COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SECRETARY, RTA THRISSUR DATED 2/2/2012 ITEM NO.2, GRANTING REGULAR PERMIT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT SERVICE ON THE ROUTE VILAKKUMAL-CHAVAKKAD FOR THE VEHICLE KL 9/T 1800 OR A SUITABLE VEHICLE** - **R3(B): COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT APPLICATION TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED .12.2011** - **R3(C): COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE CHAIRMAN RTA THRISSUR DATED 15/3/2012** - **R3(D): COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE RTO, THRISSUR DATED 17/12/2012** ## **R3(E): COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH OF THE ROUTE VILAKKUMKAL-CHAVAKKAD** **/TRUE COPY/** ## **P.S.TO.JUDGE** **sts** A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 16082 of 2013-I --------------------------------------------------Dated this the 26[th] August, 2013 **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner challenges Ext.P4 proceedings dated 20.10.2012 of the RTA Thrissur to the limited extent of indicating that the four months period in terms of Rule 159 (2) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules (hereinafter referred to as the 'KMV Rules') shall apply only from the date of communication of the last decision i.e on 5.7. 2012. 2. The facts as disclosed from the records would reveal that the 3[rd] respondent obtained grant of the regular permit in the route Vilakkumkal - Chavakkad. Ext R3(a) is the grant. The route is described as under: “......Vilakkumkal - Chavakkad via. Karamuck SNGS School, Plazhi, Kadavu, Enamavu Kadavu, Manalur East, Enamavu, Venkitangu, Mullassery, Pangu, Pavaratty.....“ 3. It is indicated in Ext.R3(a) that a regular permit is granted subject to the order in STA No. D3/875/STA/2005 dated 08.11.2011 subject to the settlement of timings. This W.P.(C) No. 16082 of 2013-I 2 was communicated to the applicant on 2.3.2012 As per Rule 159(2) of the KMV Rules the 3[rd] respondent was under obligation to produce the current records of the offered vehicle within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order failing which it was indicated that the communication will be revoked. Rule 159 of KMV Rules which reads as under: “Permits - entry of registration marks compulsory.- Time for entry.- (1) No permit shall be issued before entering the registration mark of the vehicle to which it relates has been entered therein. (2) When the applicant is unable to produce the certificate of registration on the date of his application for permit, owing to the fact that he is not on that date of possession of the vehicle duly registered, or for some other reason, the applicant shall within one month of the sanctioning of the application by the Transport Authority or such longer period or periods not exceeding four months in the aggregate as the Authority may specify, produce the certificate of registration of the vehicle before that Authority so that the particulars of the registration mark W.P.(C) No. 16082 of 2013-I 3 may be entered in the permit. In the event of any applicant failing to produce the certificate of registration within the period specified by the Transport Authority, the Authority may revoke its sanction of the application”. 4. According to the petitioner, the 3[rd] respondent sought for a clarification to include “Manalur West, Kanjany 3 way Junction, Kanjany” in the route in Ext.R3(a) grant. It is stated that there was an omission on the part of the respondent authorities while issuing the grant of regular permit to include the aforesaid three places. In fact, according to the 3[rd] respondent, they have applied for the route from Vilakkumkal to Chavakkad indicating the entire places including Manalur West, Kanjany 3 way Junction and Kanjany. But it was not included by oversight. This matter came up for consideration in the RTA meeting held on 4.6.2012 and Ext.P3 is the decision. In Ext.P3 the earlier decision dated 2.2.2012 (Ext.R3(a) ) was reconsidered and it was indicated as under: “Heard. In view of the report of the field officer submitted after enquiry. It is convinced that the route applied and report submitted are one and the same. Hence the omission of passing places W.P.(C) No. 16082 of 2013-I 4 occurred in the agenda of this RTA held on 02.02.2012 in item No.2 “Manalur West, Kanjany 3 way Junction, Kanjany” is convinced as an oversight error. Hence the intermediate places of the above granted permit on the route Vilakkumkal - Chavakkad is corrected incorporating the above mentioned omitted intermediate passing places”. 5. Thereafter it seems that the 3[rd] respondent sought for condoning the delay in producing the current records of the offered vehicle in terms of 159(2) of the KMV Rules. By Ext.P4, the date of communication is fixed as 5/7/2012. 6. The main contention urged by the petitioner is that in Ext.P4 a further four months' time has been granted from 5.7.2012 which is not allowable in terms of Rule 159(2) of the Rules. The grant of the regular permit was in terms of Ext.R3(a) which was communicated to the 3[rd] respondent on 2.3.2012 and the 30 days period starts from the said date. Since if the delay is condoned, the maximum time permissible is four months and thereafter it is an automatic cancellation of the grant. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in **Seethal** v. **R.T.A** (2003 (3) KLT 357) wherein this Court had occasion W.P.(C) No. 16082 of 2013-I 5 to consider as to whether an order is required to be passed by the RTA if there is failure to produce the current records within the aforesaid 30 days period or within the maximum period of four months. It is held that revocation of the grant is automatic and no further order is required in that regard. I do not think that a different view can be taken in the matter, having regard to the mandate under Rule 159(2) of the KMV Rules. 7. Counter affidavit is filed by the 3[rd] respondent inter alia contending that the 3[rd] respondent had applied for a regular permit in respect of a route which is clearly specified in the application for regular permit. When the authority considers the application in the RTA meeting, they have to consider the same in accordance with the Rules. When three specific points had been omitted to be included, it had given rise to a situation where there would be doubt regarding the actual route and therefore the 3[rd] respondent had to file an application for correcting Ext.P3. Ext.R3(a) is the original proceeding which according to the 3[rd] respondent was received on 1.3.2012. They could not offer the suitable vehicle W.P.(C) No. 16082 of 2013-I 6 because the 3[rd] respondent had applied for a clarification on 15.3.2012. Thereafter a decision was taken in the said application only on 5.7.2012 and hence there was nothing wrong in the authority to have granted four months time from 5.7.2012. 8. Additional affidavit has been filed by the 3[rd] respondent inter alia producing a plan which shows the route and the stops. Ext.R3(e) is the plan. It is not in dispute that what had been omitted in the original grant was the points F, H, I and J i.e. Company Centre, Manalur West Kanjany 3 way and Kanjany Centre. There is a link road between F and L i.e. Company Centre and Eanammavu. As per the original grant, it is indicated that the route from Vilakumkal shall reach the Eanammavu Kadavu and thereafter the name of the place is shown as Manalur East which is apparently before Enammavu East, the next point in the link road. Therefore there cannot be any difficulty for any person understanding that the route of the vehicle is not through the link road but the actual route is through Company Centre, Manalur West, Kanjany West and then reach Manalur East and W.P.(C) No. 16082 of 2013-I 7 thereafter it proceeds to Enammavu and Chavakkad. By this correction in Ext.P3 two consequences occurred. One is that the 3[rd] respondent got a clarification regarding the route which he had applied which included all the points specified in the application. Secondly, the 3[rd] respondent also got further time for producing the current records. As per Ext.R3(a) the petitioner ought to have produced the current records within 30 days from the date of communicated of the grant i.e. on or before 1.3.2012 and thereafter the petitioner was entitled to seek a condonation of delay, upto a maximum period of four months. Therefore, if the 3[rd] respondent was clear about the grant and there was no ambiguity regarding the route, the maximum time allowable for producing the current records is only four months even by applying the principles of condonation of delay. By the impugned order the respondent authority had extended that period by which the 3[rd] respondent would get a maximum period of four moths from 5.7.2012 i.e. the date of communication of Ext.P3 decision. 9. The question to be considered is whether such an extension of time could be granted to the 3[rd] respondent in the W.P.(C) No. 16082 of 2013-I 8 light of Rule 159(2) of the Rules. 10. The main contention urged by the petitioner is that once a grant has been issued in respect of a regular permit, there is an obligation on the part of the grantee to offer the current records of the vehicle within a period of 30 days and thereafter the maximum time that can be allowed is four months from the date of communication of the grant. By adopting a method of clarification, it should not give a leverage to any grantee to seek extension of time beyond the statutory period of four months as stipulated under Rule 159(2) of the KMV Rules. This is the very purport of the statute which cannot be deviated in any manner. This is not a case where a clarification was necessary at all. This is a case where grant had been given and it was communicated and the 3[rd] respondent was liable to offer the vehicle within the four months' period as specified under the grant which is apparently not done by treating the date of communication of the last decision as 5.7.2012 by the RTA in terms of Ext.P4. The RTA by the impugned decision was exceeding its jurisdiction by extending the time for offering the vehicle. This is not W.P.(C) No. 16082 of 2013-I 9 contemplated under the provisions of the Act or the Rules framed thereunder. If such a method is adopted there is every chance for unscrupulous grantees to seek extension of time for one reason or other. If it was a case where there was a genuine doubt regarding the route, the RTA could only issue a fresh grant and not a correction of the grant originally issued. That being the position, merely for the reason that some correction has been entered into in the proceedings of the grant or in the grant as the case may be, it is not possible for the RTA to further exercise the jurisdiction and extend the period prescribed for offering the vehicle more than what is permitted under the Rules. 11. The party respondent challenged the locus standi of the petitioner to file the writ petition. Petitioner is another operator, whose permit intersects a point along the route of the 3rd respondent. The petitioner has pointed out an illegality in relation to the exercise of jurisdiction by the RTA, which could be entertained by this writ. Hence, the writ petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of locus standi. W.P.(C) No. 16082 of 2013-I 10 That being the situation, I am of the view that this writ petition is only to be allowed and accordingly Ext.P4 is quashed. ## **Sd/-** **A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE** rka True copy P.s.to Judge