The Managing Partner, Mayilvanam Motors v. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad & Another

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 4TH ASHADHA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.16265 of 2019** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **THE MANAGING PARTNER (CA ABRAHAM, AGED 71 YEARS, S/O ABRAHAM), MAYILVAHANAM MOTORS, SHORANUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.SAJU J.VALLYARA** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD, PIN 678 001. 2 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PALAKKAD, PIN-678 001.** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI MANU RAJ K.J- GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** -2- W.P. (C). No. 16265 of 2019 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, who was the holder of Ext.P1 regular permit on the route Guruvayur-Palakkad (Via.) Pattambi, Kulappully and Ottapalam as Limited Stop Ordinary Service, in respect of a stage carriage bearing Registration No. KL-09/N8046, which was valid upto 25.08.2018, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the second respondent Regional Transport Authority to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2 application for renewal of Ext.P1 regular permit and Ext.P3 application for replacement, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent Secretary of the second respondent Regional Transport Authority, to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 application for re-issue of twenty days temporary permit, in respect of stage carriage bearing Reg.No.KL-09/AQ-5772, to operate on the route Guruvayoor-Palakkad, in place of stage carriage bearing Regn. No. KL-09/N-8046. -3- W.P. (C). No. 16265 of 2019 2. On 14.06.2019, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader sought time to get instructions. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader for the official respondents. 4. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that the route in question is an inter-district one and that Ext.P2 application made by the petitioner for renewal of Ext.P1 regular permit is pending consideration before the second respondent, along with Ext.P3 application for replacement. The second respondent shall take an appropriate decision on Ext.P2 application for renewal, with notice to the petitioner, and subject to the outcome of that application, Ext.P3 application for replacement shall be considered by the first respondent Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority. 5. In **Usha Nanthini M. V. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad & another** [ **2018 (2) KHC** **89]** this Court held that, in view of the law laid down by the -4- W.P. (C). No. 16265 of 2019 Division Bench in **Regional Transport Authority and another** v. **Shaju [ILR 2017 (3) Kerala 720]** , no request made by a permit holder for replacement of vehicle can be declined merely for the reason that the incoming vehicle is an older model, subject, of course, to the older model vehicle being certified as roadworthy. This Court, after referring to the decision of the Apex Court in **M.C. Metha v Union of India [(1997) 8 SCC 770]** , wherein it was held that the requirement of maintaining the motor vehicles in the manner prescribed and its use if roadworthy in a manner which does not endanger public, has to be ensured by the authorities and this is the aim of the provisions enacted in the Motor Vehicles Act; and also the provisions under Section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act, (which deals with certification of fitness of transport vehicles) and Rule 62 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, (which deals with validity of certificate of fitness) held that, a vehicle which no longer complies with all the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules made thereunder cannot be permitted to be driven or plied on the -5- W.P. (C). No. 16265 of 2019 road. Therefore, roadworthiness and viability of the incoming vehicle shall be the consideration in an application for replacement, rather than the model of the incoming vehicle. 6. In **Jijith v. State of Kerala and others [2019 (1) KHC 463]** , this Court held that a transport vehicle fitted with unauthorised lights cannot be treated as a vehicle which complies with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Rules made thereunder, for the purpose of grant of certificate of fitness. The paintwork of every transport vehicle shall be maintained in a clean and sound condition, as contemplated by Rule 264 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. While approving the matter intended to be exhibited on the vehicle, in exercise of the powers under sub-rule (2) of Rule 191 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, the State or the Regional Transport Authority shall ensure that it does not cause distraction to the drivers of other vehicles and also cyclists and pedestrians on public road. No approval under - sub rule (2) of Rule 191, shall be granted for exhibition of any advertisements, writings, figures, graphics, etc. on the body -6- W.P. (C). No. 16265 of 2019 of a transport vehicle, at places intended for exhibiting the name and address of the operator as per clause (g) of Section 84 of the Motor Vehicles Act; the 'emergency information panel' as per Rule 134 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules for goods carriages used for transporting any dangerous or hazardous goods; the particulars enumerated in clauses (a) to (g) of Rule 93 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules; the name of the institution exhibited in educational institution bus and private service vehicle as per Rule 291 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules; etc. In the case of a stage carriage in respect of which uniform colour scheme has been implemented under Rule 264 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, vide the decision of the State Transport Authority dated 04.01.2018, no approval under sub-rule (2) of Rule 191, shall be granted for exhibition of any advertisements, writings, figures, graphics, etc., over the three equally spaced white lines painted below the height of the wheel arch. In the said decision, this Court held further that exhibition of writings or figures with the sole object to invite public attention and to promote the contract -7- W.P. (C). No. 16265 of 2019 carriage or stage carriage service should not be permitted by levying fee under Rule 191 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. 7. In **Jijith's case supra** this Court held further that, in view of the provisions under Rule 100 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, tampering with the percentage of visual transmission of light of the safety glass of the windscreen, rear window and side windows of a motor vehicle, either by pasting any material upon the safety glass or by fixing sliding 'cloth curtains', etc. are legally impermissible. In view of the provisions under Rule 50 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, the registration mark on the right and left side of every transport vehicle has to be painted on the body and it has to be displayed as per Rule 50 read with Rule 51, at the specified place, in the manner specified in those rules. 8. In **Kerala Bus Transport Association v. Government of Kerala (2018 (4) KLT 947)** , this Court held that the provisions under the Kerala Motor Vehicles (2[nd] Amendment) Rules, 2016, are intended to ensure safe and convenient public transport facility to the passengers by -8- W.P. (C). No. 16265 of 2019 reducing the chances of untoward incidents and as such, the said provisions are in the interest of the public at large. By the said judgment, this Court has directed that, the Police and the Transport authorities shall take necessary steps to ensure that all stage carriages, including stage carriages operating as town and city services are fitted with door shutters as mandated by sub-rule (2) of Rule 280 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules and that, appropriate proceedings shall be initiated against the owners/permit holders and also the employees of the stage carriages plying with door shutters either removed or tied to bus body and that, proceedings shall also be initiated against the employees for opening or closing door shutters while the stage carriage is in motion. 9. In **Mohammed Rafi v. Regional Transport Authority (2019 (2) KLT 139)** this Court held that on an application for replacement, the competent authority has to consider the road worthiness and viability of the incoming vehicle and shall ensure that, the incoming vehicle complies with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules -9- W.P. (C). No. 16265 of 2019 made thereunder, i.e., the vehicle is not fitted with any unauthorised lights; that it is painted in the uniform colour scheme, if any, specified under Rule 264 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules; that the safety glasses of the wind screen, rear window and side windows are maintained as per the mandate of Rule 100 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, without tampering the percentage of visual transmission of light, as specified in the said Rules; that the registration mark is displayed as per Rule 50 of the Central Motor vehicles Rules, read with Rule 51, at the specified places, in the manner specified in those Rules; that it is fitted with door shutters as mandated by sub-rule (2) of Rule 280 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules; etc. 10. In **Mohammed Rafi's case (supra)** this Court directed the Transport Commissioner to ensure strict compliance of the aforesaid provisions, by the officers in the Motor Vehicles Department, while considering an application made by a stage carriage operator for replacement of the vehicle attached to stage carriage permit. After conducting an -10- W.P. (C). No. 16265 of 2019 inspection of the incoming vehicle, the officer concerned shall prepare a report as to the road worthiness of that vehicle and that the said vehicle complies with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules made thereunder for being plied as a transport vehicle. The report of the officer concerned shall be referred to in the proceedings issued on the application for replacement. 11. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the second respondent to consider Ext.P2 application made by the petitioner for renewal of permit, strictly in accordance with law, with notice to the petitioner and after affording him an opportunity of being heard, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. 12. Based on the orders passed on Ext.P2 application, the respondent shall consider Ext.P3 application made by the petitioner for replacement of the vehicle covered by Ext.P1 permit, after obtaining a report as to the road worthiness and -11- W.P. (C). No. 16265 of 2019 the statutory compliance of the incoming vehicle with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules made thereunder, and pass appropriate orders thereon, taking note of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra. A decision in this regard shall be taken, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six weeks, with notice to the petitioner and after affording him an opportunity of being heard. **Sd/-** **ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE** das -12- W.P. (C). No. 16265 of 2019 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF STATE CARRIAGE KL-09-N-8046** **EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE RENEWAL APPLICATION DATED 27.7.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLACEMENT APPLICATION DATED 11.4.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT, VIDE NO 9/799/2019 DATED 17.5.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF STAGE CARRIAGE KL-09--AQ-5772.** **EXHIBIT P5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REISSUE OF 20 DAYS TEMPORARY PERMIT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 3.6.2019**