The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur v M.C. Ratheesh

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/30TH JYAISHTA 1934** ## **RP.No. 440 of 2011 (L)** **---------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.4917/2011 DATED 17-02-2011 ..........** ## **REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT** **--------------------------------------------------------** **THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR.** **BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.P.MAYA** **RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------------------** **M.C.RATHEESH, MUTHALAMEHIRA HOUSE, P.O.KONDAZHI SOUTH, THRISSUR PIN 679 106.** **BY ADV. SRI.C.VINOD KUMAR** **THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **tss** ## **P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.** **----------------------------------------R.P.No.440 of 2011 in W.P(C).No.4917 of 2011 ----------------------------------------Dated this the 20[th] day of June, 2012** ## **O R D E R** The respondent in W.P.(C)No.4917 of 2011 has filed this review petition seeking a review of the judgment delivered by this Court on 17.2.2011. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 2. The respondent herein applied for a fresh regular stage carriage permit to operate a stage carriage service on the route Chelakkara - Mayannur via. Parakkad, Thozhupadam, Padinjattumuri, Navodaya, Chirankara, Puthirithara, Pazhayannur as an ordinary service. He did not have a vehicle ready with him when he filed the application for grant of the permit. The Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur that met on 10.1.2011 considered the application and resolved to grant the permit subject to settlement of timings. Ext.P1 is a copy of the proceedings dated 10.1.2011 issued in that regard by the Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur. A copy thereof was signed for communication to the respondent on 18.1.2011 as can be seen from Ext.P1 itself. Shortly thereafter, to be exact on ## **R.P.No.440 of 2011** ## -:2:- ## 16.2.2011, the respondent filed the writ petition with the following ## averments:- _“2. Petitioner respectfully submits that though the regular permit was sanctioned as early as on 10.1.2011, the Secretary, RTA, has not taken any steps to see that the travelling woes of the travelling public, which was granted by the RTA. The petitioner approached the office of the respondent to ascertain as to when the timings will be settled and when the permit will be issued, there has been no answer to the said query. Petitioner has already produced the records of offered stage carriage KL-10 K 3519 or suitable model vehicle for the purpose of issuance of the permit. In identically placed circumstances, this Hon. Court had directed issuance of permit and a true copy of one of such judgment is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit P-2. As per Rule 131 of the K.M.V.Rules, the Secretary, RTA is duty bound to comply with the decisions of the RTA expeditiously. For easy reference Rule 131 is extracted hereunder:_ _**'131. Executive Officer to give effect to decisions:- All decisions of the Regional Transport Authority shall be given effect to by the Secretary**_ **R.P.No.440 of 2011** -:3:- ## _**expeditiously.'**_ 2. The respondent contended that though he has already produced the current records of stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-10 K 3519, the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur has not issued the permit. In the writ petition he sought an order directing the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur to settle the timings and issue the regular permit on the route Chelakkara - Mayannur in implementation of Ext.P1 proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur. 3. When the writ petition came up for admission hearing on 17.2.2011 this Court disposed of the writ petition with the following direction:- _“The respondent shall within one week from the date on which the petitioner produces a copy of this judgment before him, issue a set of timings to the petitioner on a provisional basis and shall immediately thereafter issue the permit to the petitioner. The respondent shall thereafter invite objections from other stage carriage operators and settle the timings within a period of three months thereafter. If any existing stage carriage operator is aggrieved by the time schedule issued to the petitioner pursuant to the directions in this judgment, it will be open to him or her to object to_ ## **R.P.No.440 of 2011** -:4:- _the timings and to request the respondent to convene a timing conference to settle the timings expeditiously.”_ 4. In this review petition the respondent in the writ petition seeks a review of the said judgment. It is stated that after the Regional Transport Authority that met on 10.1.2011 resolved to grant the permit subject to settlement of timings, it was communicated to the writ petitioner on 18.1.2011 and he was called upon to produce the current records of suitable vehicle within 30 days from the date of receipt of the proceedings, that thereupon on 4.2.2011 the writ petitioner requested the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur to allow him the maximum permissible time under sub-rule (2) of rule 159 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules for production of the current records of a suitable vehicle, that the matter was placed before the Regional Transport Authority that met on 25.2.2011 and on that day the said request was granted and the maximum permissible time of four months under sub-rule (2) of rule 159 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules was granted. It is stated that it was in the meanwhile that the instant writ petition was filed complaining that though nearly a month has passed after the permit was granted **R.P.No.440 of 2011** -:5:- and the current records of the vehicle were produced, the permit has not been issued. It is also stated that the petitioner did not produce the current records of a suitable vehicle within the maximum permissible time of four months, which expired on 17.5.2011, that he produced the current records along with a copy of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.4917 of 2011 only on 4.6.2011, beyond the period of four months stipulated under subrule (2) of rule 159 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules and therefore, the permit stood cancelled. On these grounds the review petitioner seeks a review of the judgment delivered on 17.2.2011 in W.P.(C)No.4917 of 2011. 5. When this review petition came up for admission hearing on 28.6.2011, Sri.I.Dinesh Menon, learned counsel took notice on behalf of the respondent, he was heard and an interim order staying the operation of the judgment sought to be reviewed was passed for a period of one month. The said interim order was later extended until further orders and even today the said order is in force. I heard Smt.P.Maya, learned Government Pleader appearing for the review petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-writ petitioner was not present. A **R.P.No.440 of 2011** -:6:- request was however, made on his behalf by Sri.C.Vinod Kumar, for adjournment of the review petition. The respondent has not however, filed a counter affidavit denying and disputing the averments in the review petition. The writ petition was filed on the averment that though the current records of a vehicle had been produced, the timing conference has not been held and the permit has not been issued. The review petitioner has in categorical terms averred that the writ petitioner had on 4.2.2011 requested the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur to grant the maximum permissible time for production of the current records of a suitable vehicle, that the said request was granted by the Regional Transport Authority on 25.2.2011, that the maximum permissible period for production of the records expired on 17.5.2011 and that the petitioner produced the current records of the vehicle only on 4.6.2011, after the expiry of the period of four months stipulated in sub-rule (2) of rule 159 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. These facts are not in dispute. It is evident from Ext.P1 proceedings dated 10.1.2011 issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur, that the petitioner had not offered any vehicle when he submitted the ## **R.P.No.440 of 2011** ## -:7:- application for grant of a regular permit. From the materials on record it is evident that he offered a vehicle only long after the maximum permissible period prescribed under rule 159(2) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules expired. Rule 159 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules reads as follows:- ## _**“159. 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 in 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 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._ _(3) The power vested in a Transport_ **R.P.No.440 of 2011** -:8:- _Authority under sub-rule (2) shall also be exercised by its delegatee in respect of orders passed under the delegated powers.”_ 6. Sub-rule (2) of rule 159 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules stipulates that 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 in 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 may be entered in the permit. It is also stipulated that 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. In _**Seethal v. R.T.A., Trichur**_ , 2003 (3) KLT 357, a learned single Judge of this Court held interpreting rule 159 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules that if the current records are not produced by the grantee within four months from the date of communication of **R.P.No.440 of 2011** ## -:9:- the grant of permit, then the permit shall stand cancelled without the Regional Transport Authority requiring to cancel it as that is a necessary consequence of the operation of the condition of permit granted under section 72(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with rule 159(2) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. I such circumstances as the writ petitioner had not produced the current records of a suitable vehicle within the maximum permissible time of four months stipulated in rule 159(2) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, the grant in his favour stood cancelled by operation of law. I accordingly hold that the judgment delivered by this Court on 17.2.2011 in W.P.(C)No.4917 of 2011 is liable to be reviewed and recalled. 5. The review petitioner came to this Court with a plea that though he had produced the current records of a suitable vehicle, the time schedule has not been settled and the permit issued. The petitioner suppressed the fact that on the date on which the writ petition was filed, namely 16.2.2011, the request made by him on 4.2.2011 for grant of the maximum permissible time to produce the current records of a suitable vehicle was pending before the Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur. The petitioner ## **R.P.No.440 of 2011** ## -:10:- thereby misled this Court into passing the judgment which is sought to be reviewed. In such circumstances I am of the opinion that he should be held liable to pay costs of the review petitioner, which I quantify at Rs.5,000/-. I accordingly allow the review petition and review and recall the judgment delivered by this Court on 17.2.2011 in W.P.(C) No.4917 of 2011. The review petitioner will be entitled to realise Rs.5000/- as costs from the respondent. Registry is directed to post the writ petition for hearing as per roster. **P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge.** ## **ahg.** **P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------R.P.No.440 of 2011 ----------------------------** **O R D E R** **20[th] June, 2012**