VIPIN N.K. S/O. PAVITHRAN K v THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.14755 OF 2019(T)** ## **PETITIONER:** **VIPIN N.K. S/O. PAVITHRAN K, NHANDADIYIL, KANNAVAM PO, THALASSERY-670 650.** **BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR** ## **RESPONDENT:** **THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE-673 020.** **SRI HARISH K.P-SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 2 WP(C)14755 OF 2019 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner is the holder of Ext.P1 regular permit on the route Palakkad-Sultan Bathery, in respect of stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-50/D-3322 (basic vehicle No.KL48/F-8065), which was valid up to 08.11.2015, which was being operated initially as Super Fast Service till the prohibition is imposed in the operation of higher class service by private operators and in the light of G.O.(M.s.) No.45 of 2015 dated 20.08.2015. The petitioner submitted Ext.P2 application dated 06.10.2015 before the respondent for renewal of Ext.P1 permit, which is still pending consideration. Pending consideration of that application, the petitioner is conducting the service on the strength of temporary permits issued under clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 87 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. A copy of the temporary permit, which was valid till 20.07.2019, is placed on record as Ext.P3. The Regional Transport Authority, Kozhikode considered the renewal application made by the petitioner to renew Ext.P1 permit as Limited Stop Ordinary Service, in its meeting held on 27.11.2015. By Ext.P4 decision dated 27.11.2015, the 3 WP(C)14755 OF 2019 Regional Transport Authority directed the respondent to seek concurrence from the sister authorities and for that purpose, adjourned the said application. 2. Relying on Ext.P5 judgment of this Court dated 17.03.2017 in W.P.(C)No.1786 of 2017 and connected cases, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that, for grant of renewal of permit, concurrence of the sister authorities are not required, so long as concurrence or countersignature was obtained while granting the permit. 3. The petitioner has moved this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to renew Ext.P1 regular permit to operate as LSOS, on the route Palakkad-Sulthan Bathery, by considering Ext.P3 application, without insisting concurrence of the sister Regional Transport Authorities, in the light of the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in Ext.P5 judgment in W.P.(C) No.1786 of 2017. 4. A statement has been filed by the respondent, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. Paragraph 3 to 5 of the said statement read thus; “3. The Regional Transport Authority, Kozhikode on 4 WP(C)14755 OF 2019 27.11.2015 vide item number 104 has adjourned the application for conversion of service for want of renewal of permit concurrence from sister RTAs. Proceedings of the meeting dispatched on 30.12.2015. Temporary permit was issued u/s.87(1)(d) for the period from 03.05.2016 to 02.08.2016. Again temporary permit was issued u/s. 87(1) (d) for the period from 02.03.2017 to 01.07.2017. In obedience to the judgment in W.P.(C)No.12926/2017 dated 11.04.2017, application for renewal of permit was decided to place before the next meeting of the Regional Transport Authority, Kozhikode. The Regional Transport Authority, Kozhikode on 19.06.2017 vide item No.76 granted the application for conversion from Fast Passenger to LSOS subject to the curtailment of excess length of the route to comply the directions of Notification 8/2017 and the application for renewal of permit adjourned with direction to secretary RTA to place before next RTA with modified proposal and thus proceedings was issued to the applicant on 07.08.2017. The modified proposal to comply the directions of Notification 08/2017 has not submitted by the applicant till date. In obedience to the judgment in W.P.(C) No.26012/2017, temporary permit renewed for a period of four months from 22.08.2017 to 21.12.2017. The permit holder of the stage carriage was heard on 27.02.2018. He stated that modified proposal will submit after obtaining judgment in W.P.(C) No.10563/2017. In obedience to the judgment in W.P.(C) No.4564/2018 temporary permit issued for four months valid from 27.02.2018 to 26.06.2018. The stage carriage KL-18/G8704 was replaced by KL-50/D-3322 on 12.04.2018 as per 5 WP(C)14755 OF 2019 the judgment in W.P.(C) No.7354/2018. Temporary permit further renewed for two months from 17.07.2018 to 16.09.2018 as per judgment in W.P.(C) No.22422/2018, dated 06.07.2018. As per judgment in W.P.(C) No.26012/2017 dated 25.10.2018 temporary permit issued u/s.87(1)(d) up to 20.07.2019. 4. The Regional Transport Authority, Kozhikode on 19.06.2017 vide item number 76 granted the application for conversion from Fast Passenger to LSOS subject to the curtailment of excess length of the route to comply the directions of Notification 8/2017 and the application for renewal of permit adjourned with direction to secretary RTA to place before next RTA with modified proposal and thus proceedings was issued to the applicant on 07.08.2017. The modified proposal to comply the direction of Notification 08/2017 has not submitted by the applicant till date. 5. The modified proposal to comply the directions of Notification 08/2017 has not submitted by the applicant till date.” 5. The petitioner has also filed reply affidavit. The petitioner would also rely on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in **KSRTC v. Saju Varkey and others [2018 (4) KHC 617]** . 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 6 WP(C)14755 OF 2019 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on Ext.P5 judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.1786 of 2017 and connected cases, would contend that the concurrence of the sister authorities is not required so long as concurrence or countersignature was obtained while granting the permit. Relying on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in **Saju Varkey's case (supra)** , the learned counsel would contend further that there is no legal requirement to submit a modified proposal to comply with the directions contained in Notification No.8/2017. 8. The learned Government Pleader would contend that in Ext.P5 judgment, this Court was not dealing with a case in which conversion of service from Fast Passenger to Limited Stop Ordinary Service was sought for. Further, on account of curtailment of excess length of the route, the petitioner has to submit a modified proposal. 9. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this Court finds that, since Ext.P2 application made by the petitioner for renewal of Ext.P1 regular permit as Limited Stop Ordinary Service is pending consideration, it is for the respondent to take an appropriate 7 WP(C)14755 OF 2019 decision on that application, 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 one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The respondent shall deal with appropriately the contention raised by the petitioner relying on Ext.P5 judgment and also the necessity, if any, of a modified proposal for consideration of Ext.P2 application for renewal on account of curtailment of excess length of route. Sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE** **yd** 8 WP(C)14755 OF 2019 ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT.** **EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PERMIT HOLDER DATED 6.1.2015.** **EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT VALID TILL 20.7.2019. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COY OF THE DECISION OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY DATED 27.11.2015. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.1786 OF 2017 DATED 17.3.2017.** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL** **TRUE COPY** **P.A. TO JUDGE**