W.P.(C). No.15244 of 2016 (E)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** **WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2016/11TH JYAISHTA, 1938** **WP(C).No. 15244 of 2016 (E)** **----------------------------** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **------------** **1. SRI.BABU,S/O.KOCHANIYAN, PALAZHY HOUSE, AYYAPPANKAVU.PO, TRICHUR.** **2. SRI.AYAKAKUMAR, S/O.ARAVINDAKSHAN, CHERKKARA HOUSE, MANAKKODY, ARIMBUR,TRICHUR.** **3. SRI.NISHAN,S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, THAZHEKKAT HOUSE, KANATTUKARA.P.O,TRICHUR.** **4. SRI.RAJEEV, S/O.VASU, CHEMDAMKULANGARA HOUE,PERINCHERRY.P.O. TRICHUR.** **5. SRI.VESAN, S/O CHAMI, KOZHUPPULLIPARAMBIL HOUE, AYYAPPANKAVU.P.O, MULAYAM, TRICHUR.** **6. SRI.VARGHESE, S/O ANTHONY, ALAPPAT THOTTYAN HOUSE, ELTHURUTH.P.O,** **TRICHUR.** **7. SRI.JAISON, S/O.ENASU,CHUNKATH ALIKKALA HOUSE,AYYANTHOLE.P.O, TRICHUR.** **8. SRI.JIJU, S/O.DEVASSY, BRAHMAKULAM HOUSE, PULLAZHY.P.O, TRICHUR.** **9. SRI.SUNEESH.K.U, S/O.UNNIKRISHNAN, KALATHIL HOUSE, PLAKKATT LANE, TRICHUR.** **10. SRI.BIJU.C.R, S/O. RAPPAI, CHAKKALMUTTAM HOUSE, ANCHERY.P.O, TRICHUR.** **11. SRI.PAUL THOMAS,S/O.THOMAS, ARAKKAL HOUSE, ARANATTUKARA.P.O, TRICHUR.** **12. SRI.SUKUMARAN, S/O.PARUKUTTY, KOKKINI HOUSE, AYYANTHOLE.P.O, TRICHUR.** **--2--** **--2--** ## **WP(C).No. 15244 of 2016 (E)** ## **---------------------------** **13. SRI.AJITH KUMAR, S/O.APPUKUTTAN, ANCHANIL HOUSE, KOORKENCHERRY.P.O, TRICHUR.** **14. SRI.GEORGUS, S/O.GEORGE, THERATTIL HOUSE, ARANATTUKARA.P.O, PANAMUCK, TRICHUR.** **5. SRI.NIHIL, PANIKKAVEETTIL HOUSE, KURICHIKKARA.P.O, TRICHUR.** **BY ADV. SRI.P.K.ANIL** **RESPONDENTS:** **------------** - **1.REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR-680609,** - **REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** - **2.THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR-680609.** - **3.THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, THRISSUR-680609.** **4.THE THRISSUR CORPORATION, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-680020.** **5.THE SECRETARY, THRISSUR CORPORATION, M.O.ROAD, THRISSUR-680020.** **R1 TO R3 BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA R4 & R5 BY SRI.K.P.VIJAYAN** **ADV.SRI.V.N.HARIDAS** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-06-2016, ALONG WITH WPC. 15267/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **mbr/** ## **WP(C).No. 15244 of 2016 (E)** ## **---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:** ## **-----------------------** |**P1**|**:**<br>**TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE STATE TRANSPORT**| |---|---| ||**APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM IN MVAA 417/2011.**| |**P2**|**: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT**| ||**DATED 18.3.2015 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.**| |**P3**|**: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT**| ||**DATED 18.3.2015 ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.**| |**P4**|**: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT**| ||**DATED 18.3.2015 ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER**| |**P5**|**: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT**| ||**DATED 18.3.2015 ISSUED TO THE 4TH PETITIONER**| |**P6**|**: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT**| ||**DATED 18.3.2015 ISSUED TO THE 5TH PETITIONER.**| |**P7**|**: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT**| ||**DATED 18.3.2015 ISSUED TO THE 6TH PETITIONER.**| |**P8**|**: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT**| ||**DATED 18.3.2015 ISSUED TO THE 7TH PETITIONER.**| |**P9**|**: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT**| ||**DATED 10.2.2015 ISSUED TO THE 8TH PETITIONER**| |**P10**|**: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT**| ||**DATED 10.2.2015 ISSUED TO THE 9TH PETITIONER**| |**P11**|**: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT**| ||**DATED 10.2.2015 ISSUED TO THE 10TH PETITIONER.**| |**P12**|**: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT**| ||**DATED 10.2.2015 TO THE 11TH PETITIONER.**| |**P13**|**: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT**| ||**DATED 27.3.2015 TO THE 12TH PETITIONER.**| |**P14**|**: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT**| ||**DATED 27.3.2015 TO THE 13TH PETITIONER.**| |**P15**|**: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT**| ||**DATED 15.5.2015 TO THE 14TH PETITIONER.**| **--2--** **--2--** ## **WP(C).No. 15244 of 2016 (E)** **---------------------------** **P16 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15.7.2015 TO THE 15TH PETITIONER.** **P17 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C)20209/15 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 7.8.15. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL** **-----------------------** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **mbr/** ## **SHAJI P. CHALY, J.** ## ----------------------------------------------- **W.P.(C). No.15244 of 2016 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 1[st] day of June, 2016** ## **JUDGMENT** This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to quash Exts.P2 to P16 and further seeking direction to the 3[rd] respondent to grant permit to the petitioners as applied by them in terms of Ext.P1 judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam dated 9.12.2011 and judgment of this court as per Ext.P17 dated 7.8.2015 in W.P.(C) No.20209/2015 and Ext.P1 judgment and for other related reliefs. 2. Brief facts for the disposal of the writ petition are thus; petitioners are contract carriage permit holders of autorickshaws vide permit issued by the 2[nd] respondent. The condition incorporated in the permit with respect to the operations of the contract carriages is all fit roads in Thrissur District subject to the condition that the vehicles shall not park or pick up passengers from within the city. This court by Ext.P17 judgment had occasion to consider the restriction imposed in the permits with respect to the parking, halting and W.P.(C). No.15244 of 2016 2 picking up passengers and has held that the motor vehicles authorities have no power to impose such general restriction and each and every applications is to be considered in accordance with the merits of the same. Such decision was rendered by this court following the judgment of this court in **Rajesh v. Secretary, RTA [** 2014(3) KLT 341] in which it was held that the Regional Transport Authority cannot issue a general order that, only certain number of permits would be granted in an area. That apart it was held that mere existence of number of permits and the decision by the Regional Transport Authority or higher authority to restrict the grant based on numbers alone would fall foul since such limits could be only prescribed by the State Government by issuing appropriate notifications. 3. Even though petitioners filed applications seeking variation of permits, respondents have not accepted fee from the petitioners in view of the instructions issued by the higher authorities from doing so. In that view of the matter, petitioners have approached this court by filing W.P.(C) No.23789/2014 and accordingly a direction was issued by this court to the 1[st] respondent to consider their application for variation of permit W.P.(C). No.15244 of 2016 3 on merits. However the 3[rd] respondent has rejected the same as per Ext.P2 to P16 orders. It is thus aggrieved by Exts.P2 to P16 orders of the 3[rd] respondent, this writ petition is preferred by the petitioners. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5. 5. Having considered the pleadings put forth, documents on record and the rival submissions made by the respective counsel, I am of the considered opinion that respondents 1 to 3 are bound by the judgments rendered by this court in **Rajesh v. Secretary, RTA** referred supra and Ext.P17 judgment held by this court wherein this court has considered the power of the motor vehicle authorities to issue conditions on permit with respect to halting, parking and picking up passengers and has deprecated imposing such conditions in permits. 7. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that this writ petition is to be allowed and issue appropriate directions to respondents 1 and 2. 8. Therefore, Exts.P2 to P16 orders are quashed and direct W.P.(C). No.15244 of 2016 4 respondents 1 and 2 to re-consider the applications submitted by the petitioners with respect to their auto rickshaws pertaining to Ext.P2 to P16 orders and pass orders on the same in accordance with law as directed in the above referred judgments and the directions contained in this judgment. However a decision shall be taken on the same as early as possible at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is allowed accordingly. Sd/- **SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE** smv 02.06.2016