SUNEESH v. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM & ORS

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** ## **THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938** ## **WP(C).No. 33980 of 2015 (V)** **----------------------------** **PETITIONER(S):** **-----------------------** **SUNEESH, S/O. SAHANAN, THITTAYIL HOUSE, PANANGAD P.O.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK.** **RESPONDENT(S):** **---------------------------** **1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM - 682 030.** **2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM - 682 030.** **3. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **ADDL. R4 TO R6 IMPLEADED** **4. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PRIVATE BUS OPERATORS ASSOCIATION REG.NO.609/93 ANKAMALI, KALADY, ATHANI UNIT, PAUL ARCADE, ANKAMALI - 683 572, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** **5. THE KERALA STATE PRIVATE BUS OPERATORS FEDERATION REGD. NO.609/93, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, LAWRENCE BABU, MACHINGAL LANE, THRISSUR - 680 001.** ## **WP(C).No. 33980 of 2015 (V)** **6. MAMMOTTY, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.ABDULLA, SAINA MANZIL, AMYLYA STREET, BANERJI ROAD, KOCHI - 18.** - **ADDL. R4 TO R6 IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 25/01/2016 IN I.A. NO.16959/2015.** **R1 & R2 BY SPL. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P. SANTHOSH KUMAR. R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.CHACKO, SC. ADDL. R4 TO R 6 BY SRI.K.JAJU BABU, SENIOR ADVOCATE. ADV. SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-12-2016, ALONG WITH WP(C).NO.34008 OF 2015 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** rs. ## **WP(C).No. 33980 of 2015 (V)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-** - **P1 - A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REGULAR PERMIT FILED ON 21.11.2013.** - **P2 - A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-07/AN 2511.** - **P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 17.08.2015 IN ITEM NO.10.** - **P4 - A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY PERMIT DATED 30.10.2015.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-** - **EXT.R2A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28/03/2001.** **EXT.R2B COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2010(4) KLT 597 (SC) DATED 04/08/2010.** - **EXT.R2C COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2004(1) KLT 1091 DATED 11/02/2004.** - **EXT.R3A COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 18/11/2015 OF THE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KERALA, TRIVANDRUM.** **EXT.R4A COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE APEX COURT DATED 04/08/2010 IN CA. NO.5227/2003.** - **EXT.R4B COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21/08/2015 IN WP(C).NO.26085/2015 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.** - **EXT.R4C COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY ON 18/12/2015.** - **EXT.R4D COPY OF THE REPLY VIDE NO.D2/27925/S.T.A./2015 DATED 20/01/2016 GIVEN BY THE SECRETARY OF THE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT.** **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.S. TO JUDGE** rs. ## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.** **= = = = = = = = = = = = = =** **WP.(C).No.33980, 34008, 34298, 34590, 34614, 34677, 36400 & 36602 of 2015** ## **and** **97, 167, 563, 645, 2206, 5216, 5559, 6028, 7218, 7241, 7416, 7489, 7535, 8354, 8567, 8693, 9423, 10003, 11529, 12695, 15422, 16937, 16954, 18926, 20186, 20227, 20372, 20896, 23869, 24607, 25953, 28466, 29092, 29376, 30278, 31440, 31885, 33635, 35170, 35171, 35172 & 35240 of 2016** **= = = = = = = = = = = = = =** Dated this the 15[th] day of December, 2016. ## **J U D G M E N T** The issues arise for consideration in these writ petitions are common and as such, they are disposed by this common judgment. The matters arise under the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 ('the Act'). The facts disclosed in the matters are more or less identical. It is, therefore, suffice to mention the facts **WP.(C).No.33980 of 2015 & con.cases.** **==> picture [7 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** disclosed in WP(C).No.34298 of 2015, wherein the contesting respondent has filed a counter affidavit. 2. The petitioner has submitted an application before the first respondent Regional Transport Authority for grant of a regular permit to operate an ordinary stage carriage service. Though the permit sought by the petitioner has been granted as per Ext.P1 order, it is mentioned therein that the first respondent has decided that fresh permits need be issued only to stage carriages which have not completed five years and therefore, the permit granted will be issued only to such a vehicle. The case of the petitioner is that the first respondent Regional Transport Authority is having jurisdiction only over a portion of Ernakulam revenue district and fresh permits are being issued by all other Regional Transport Authorities in the State for vehicles which have completed five years. According to the petitioner, 15 years is fixed as the maximum age of vehicles by all other Regional Transport Authorities in the State for grant of ordinary stage carriage permits and the restriction imposed by the first respondent as regards the age of the vehicle is, therefore, not **WP.(C).No.33980 of 2015 & con.cases.** 3 fair. It is also the case of the petitioner that the decision of the first respondent referred to in Ext.P1 is a decision purported to have been taken in public interest to avert accidents and pollution; that no restriction, however, is imposed by the first respondent for replacing the vehicle covered by a permit with another vehicle which has completed five years and as such, the restriction is arbitrary, for, the same does not serve any purpose. The petitioner, therefore, seeks orders quashing Ext.P1 order to the extent it provides that the permit granted to him will be issued only to a vehicle which has not completed five years. 3. It is contended in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, among others, that the impugned restriction is imposed in the interest of public to avert pollution and accidents; that it has the power to impose restrictions as regards the age of the vehicles to be used for conducting stage carriage services under Section 72(2) of the Act; that identical restriction imposed by the first respondent and other Regional Transport Authorities in the State earlier confining stage carriage permits to vehicles not older than fifteen years has been upheld by this ## **WP.(C).No.33980 of 2015 & con.cases.** **==> picture [7 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** Court in **Raghavan v. RTO, Kollam** (2001(2) KLT 209) and that the decision in **Raghavan's case** (supra) has been confirmed in appeal by the Apex Court. 4. Two organisations of the private bus operators and a private bus operator got themselves impleaded as additional respondents 4 to 6 in one of the writ petitions namely, WP(C).No.34008 of 2015 and supported the decision of the first respondent which is impugned in the writ petitions. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Special Government Pleader as also the learned counsel for the additional respondents 4 to 6 in WP(C).No.34008 of 2015. 6. In the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C).No.35171 of 2016 has brought to the notice of this Court an order passed by the State Transport Authority on 29.02.2016 which is Ext.P3 in the said writ petition. It is seen that organisations of stage carriage operators had represented the State Transport Authority to raise the life span fixed for the vehicles for conducting stage carriage services to twenty years from the existing fifteen years. Ext.P3 is the **WP.(C).No.33980 of 2015 & con.cases.** 5 decision taken by the State Transport Authority on the said representation. As per the said decision, the State Transport Authority has decided to retain the age limit as fifteen years. In the light of the said decision of the State Transport Authority, the learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C)No.35171 of 2016 has also contended, relying on the provision contained in Section 68 (4) of the Act, that the Regional Transport Authorities in the State which are bound to give effect to the said decision of the State Transport Authority cannot take a decision confining grant of fresh permits to vehicles which have not completed five years. 7. It is brought to the notice of this Court in the course of the arguments that a few more Regional Transport Authorities in the State have taken identical decisions confining fresh permits for conduct of stage carriage services only to vehicles which have not completed five years. There is, however, no dispute to the fact that the stand adopted by the Regional Transport Authorities functioning in the State as regards the maximum age of the vehicles for grant of stage carriage permits is not consistent. It is seen that in **Raghavan's case** (supra), **WP.(C).No.33980 of 2015 & con.cases.** 6 the Division Bench of this Court held that the power conferred under the Act on the Regional Transport Authorities to specify the description of the stage carriage in the matter of granting stage carriage permits includes the power to specify the age of the stage carriages also and the said decision of this Court has been upheld by the Apex Court. Looking in that perspective, it cannot be contended that the decision of the first respondent referred to in Ext.P1 order is one without jurisdiction. At the same time, I am of the view that fairness demands that a consistent stand is adopted by all the Regional Transport Authorities in the State in a matter like this, especially when a decision in this regard is taken to avert road accidents and reduce atmospheric pollution. In this context, it is worth referring to Section 68(3) of the Act dealing with the powers of the State Transport Authority, which reads thus: “The State Transport Authority and every Regional Transport Authority shall give effect to any directions issued under Section 67 and the State Transport Authority shall, subject to such directions and save as otherwise provided for under this Act, exercise and discharge throughout the State the following powers and functions, namely:- **WP.(C).No.33980 of 2015 & con.cases.** 7 - (a) to co-ordinate and regulate the activities and policies of the Regional Transport Authorities if any, of the State; - (b) to perform the duties of a Regional Transport Authority where there is no such Authority and if it thinks fit or if so require by a Regional Transport Authority, to perform those duties in respect of any route common to two or more regions; - (c) to settle all disputes and decide all matters on which differences of opinion arise between Regional Transport Authorities; - (ca) Government to formulate routes for plying stage carriages; and - (d) to discharge such other functions as may be prescribed.” It is explicit from Section 68(3) of the Act that it is the function of the State Transport Authority to co-ordinate and regulate the activities and policies of the Regional Transport Authorities in the State. The State Transport Authority being the authority empowered to co-ordinate and regulate the activities and policies of the Regional Transport Authorities in the State, I have no doubt that when a policy as in the instant case requires to be formulated as to the maximum age of the vehicles for conduct of ordinary stage carriage services, it is for the State Transport **WP.(C).No.33980 of 2015 & con.cases.** **==> picture [7 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** Authority to take a decision in this regard. The decision of the State Transport Authority relied on by the petitioner in WP(C). No.35171 of 2016 indicates that the State Transport Authority is better equipped to take decisions of this nature with the active assistance of the research and development team of the Motor Vehicles Department. It is beyond dispute that the State Transport Authority is yet to take a decision in this regard. The decision of the State Transport Authority relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C).No.35171 of 2016 is only a decision on the representation of the private stage carriage operators to rise the lifespan of vehicles to be used for conducting stage carriage services to 20 years from 15 years. In the circumstances, I am of the view that these writ petitions can be disposed of directing the State Transport Authority to take a decision as to the maximum age of vehicles for conducting ordinary stage carriage services so as to enable the Regional Transport Authorities to adopt a consistent stand in this regard throughout the State. In the result, the writ petitions are disposed of **WP.(C).No.33980 of 2015 & con.cases.** **==> picture [7 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** directing the State Transport Authority to take a decision as to the maximum age of the vehicles to be used for conducting ordinary stage carriage services in the State. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the State Transport Authority for compliance of the said direction. A decision in this regard shall be taken by the State Transport Authority within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Since it is a matter affecting the stage carriage operators throughout the State, a public notice shall be issued before compliance of the above direction so as to enable the persons interested to put forward their views in the matter before the State Transport Authority. The petitioners in the writ petitions as also the additional respondents 4 to 6 in WP(C). No.34008 of 2015 shall, however, be given individual notices. It is also made clear that till a final decision is taken in this matter by the State Transport Authority, temporary permits shall be issued to the petitioners for intervals of two months to operate service. Revised orders on the applications preferred by the petitioners for grant of permits shall be passed by the Regional **WP.(C).No.33980 of 2015 & con.cases.** 10 Transport Authorities concerned, if situation warrants after the decision of the State Transport Authority. _**Sd/-**_ **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.** _**Kvs/-**_ // true copy //