Sijo Devassy, M.O. Varghese and Shiji Varghese v. Joint Regional Transport Officer, Sub Regional Transport Office, Angamaly; Angamaly Municipality; Transport Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI** ## **FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/5TH ASHADHA, 1937** ## **WP(C).No.12993 of 2015 (Y)** ## **---------------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER'S:** ## **----------------------** ## **1. SIJO DEVASSY,S/O.DEVASSY,MALIACKAL HOUSE, KOTHAKULANGARA,ANGAMALY P.O.,PIN-683572.** **2. M.O.VARGHESE,S/O.OUSEPH,MANGALAKADAN HOUSE, ANGADIKADAVU,ANGAMALY P.O.,PIN-683572.** **3. SHIJI VARGHESE,D/O.VARGHESE,ALOOKKARAN HOUSE, PEECHANIKKAD,ANGAMALY,PIN-683572.** ## **BY ADV.SRI.WILSON URMESE** ## **RESPONDENT'S:** ## **-------------------------** **1. THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, SUB RT OFFICE,ANGAMALY P.O.,PIN-683572.** **2. ANGAMALY MUNICIPALITY,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,MUNICIPAL OFFICE, ANGAMALY P.O.,PIN-683572.** ## **3. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** **R1-R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA. R2 BY SRI.V.M.KURIAN,SC,ANGAMALY MUNICIPALITY.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.06.2015 THE COURT ON 26-06-2015,T DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **pk** ## **WP(C).No.12993 of 2015 (Y)** ## **---------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** ## **------------------------------------** **EXHIBIT-P1:TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION ISSUED TO VEHICLE BEARING REG.NO.KL-63-C-1920.** **EXHIBIT-P2:TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION ISSUED TO VEHICLE BEARING REG.NO.KL-63 C-1895.** **EXHIBIT-P3:TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION ISSUED TO VEHICLE BEARING REG.NO.KL-63 C-1977.** **EXHIBIT-P4:TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED TO VEHICLE BEARING REG.NO.KL-63 C-1920 BY THE SECRETARY, RTA DATED 12.02.2015.** **EXHIBIT-P5:TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE CHANGE OF PARKING PLACE IN THE PERMIT, SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT-P6:TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.51/613/2015 DATED 03.03.2015, ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT-P7:TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.01.2015, WITH RESOLUTION NO.25 OF THE ANGAMALY MUNICIPALITY.** **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:** **-------------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE I:TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.D1/2096/2013 DATED 6.9.2013.** **ANNEXURE II:TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) NO.18168/2011.** **ANNEXURE III:TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 28.8.2014.** **ANNEXURE IV:TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 25.3.2015.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **pk** ## **A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.** ## **-------------------------------------** W.P.(C) No.12993 of 2015 -------------------------------------Dated this the 26[th] day of June, 2015. ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners are aggrieved by Ext.P6 dated 3.3.2015 passed by the first respondent by which the petitioners application for a change of parking place in the permit was rejected on the basis of a circular dated 6.9.2013 issued by the third respondent. 2. Petitioners are registered owners of new passenger autorickshaws registered with the Sub Regional Transport Office, Angamaly. Exts.P1 to P3 are the certificates of registration. Petitioners allege that all the above autorickshaws were purchased availing bank loans under 'kudumbasree' project of the Angamaly Municipality. The petitioners have purchased these autorickshaws to ply it in Angamaly stand. However, the first petitioner was given permit as per Ext.P4 with parking place 'Karayamparambu' in Karukutty Grama Panchayat. As he was a resident of W.P.(C) No.12993 of 2015 -2- Angamaly Municipality and that the auto was purchased under the 'kundumbasree' project of the Angamalay Municipality, he approached the first respondent for the change of parking place in the permit. Ext.P5 is the application. However, stating a Circular dated 6.9.2013 of the third respondent, the first respondent rejected the application vide Ext.P6 letter. It is submitted that the second and third petitioners have also applied for contract carriage permits to park their vehicles in Angamaly stand. However, the first respondent is taking a different stand in Ext.P6. As the petitioners are permanent residents of Angamaly Municipality and the vehicles were purchased under the 'kudumbasree' project of the Angamaly Municipality, they are entitled to get contract carriage permits to park their vehicles in Angamaly stand and ply it from there. Angamaly Municipality has also passed resolution in this regard and requested the first respondent to issue permits to those three vehicles, distributed under the 'kudumbasree' project of the Angamaly Municipality, with parking place in Angamaly; it W.P.(C) No.12993 of 2015 -3- is alleged. It is with this background, the petitioners have come up before this Court. 3. A detailed statement has been filed by the first respondent. It was contended that, so many complaints are received from public, institutions and individuals regarding the traffic congestion and unauthorised parking of autorickshaws causing traffic hazards and accidents in the town, blocking the smooth traffic flow in the Municipal area. The second respondent had also filed written complaints on 28.8.2014 and on 25.3.2015 regarding the unauthorised operation, parking of vehicles causing traffic congestion mainly in the link road connecting NH and Nagarasabha beside KSRTC Stand. It is submitted that a detailed enquiry was also conducted by the Motor Vehicles Inspector belonging to the office of the 1[st] respondent and reported that Angamaly is a town located on the side of NH 47 and an entry point to MC Road. There are vehicles from Perumbavoor, Muvattupuzha, Kottayam side and from Aluva - Ernakulam side from the South and from Thrissur W.P.(C) No.12993 of 2015 -4- - Kozhikode side from the North. Also vehicles going to the International Airport from the Northern side has to touch the Angamaly Town. During Sabarimala and Malayattoor Festival seasons, the road traffic along Angamaly Town multiples and often cause traffic block for kilometers in length. The Little Flower Hospital in the town centre also adds fuel to the traffic stumbling block within the city. It is stated that the main auto stands in and around the town are located at KSRTC, LF Junction, Bank Junction, TB Junction, Railway Station, near Mavely Jewellery, near Rajeev Bhavan, near Anand Bhavan Hotel. Presently, all these stands are flooded with three vehicles and is a major cause of concern which contribute to the congestion. The indisciplined parking of three vehicles near KSRTC leaving no margin to the pedestrians and other road users also is a regular complaint even from the Municipal authority. Another complaint regarding the dangerous and indisciplined parking of three vehicles at Church Junction is also an issue of conflict between the shop owners, public and W.P.(C) No.12993 of 2015 -5- the vehicle operators. The Church Nagar Residents Association, Merchants of the area, Holy Family School authorities have lodged written complaints on this issue. Conflicts and manhandling among three vehicle operators are also a common issue in the Town. 4. Arguments have been heard. 5. It appears that Ext.P6 was issued on the basis of the circular issued by the third respondent. The petitioners are residents of Angamaly Municipality. The autorickshaws purchased by them are under the kudumbasree project of Angamaly Municipality. While granting permit, the first respondent has to be guided by Section 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 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 W.P.(C) No.12993 of 2015 -6- 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. 6. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the interim order has to go. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P6 is quashed. The first respondent is directed to reconsider Ext.P5 and such other applications submitted by the petitioners for the grant of contract carriage permits for their vehicles seeking permission to park within the local limits of Angamaly Municipality. This shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. **Sd/A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE** Scl.