Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 11TH ASWINA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 32225 OF 2023 PETITIONER: SURESHKUMAR KB, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O BALAN, KALLATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, MOORKANIKKARA, KOZHUKKULLY POST, THRISSUR, PIN - 680751 BY ADV ARUN CHANDRAN RESPONDENTS: 1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, CIVIL STATION P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 003 2 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, CIVIL STATION P.O., THRISSUR - 680 003
3 VISWANATHAN, S/O VELUKUTTY, AMMANATH HOUSE, NADATHARA P.O., THRISSUR - 680751 OTHER PRESENT: S. GOPINATHAN, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 3rd day of October, 2023 Petitioner has filed this writ petition impugning Exhibit P8 decision of Regional Transport Authority, whereby the route permit of 3rd respondent on the route Cherumkuzhy-Ayyanthole-Thalikundu- Eravimangalam, has been renewed and the new vehicle has been endorsed in place of old vehicle.
2. The petitioner is a competitor having permit in the same
route for his stage carriage having registration No. KL 08 BR 3869. The only submission, which has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the RTA should not have renewed the route permit of 3rd respondent with endorsement of the new vehicle simultaneously. Learned counsel for the petitioner is however not in a position to point out how any of his fundamental or legal rights get violated, if the 3rd respondent’s permit has been renewed simultaneously with endorsement of new vehicle in place of old vehicle.
3. As per the impugned order, it is evident that RTA has acted as per the direction issued by this Court in R.P.No.497/2023 in WP(C).40245/2022. The relevant portion of the decision taken by the RTA reads as under:
“1) Perused the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala dated 26/05/2023 in RP No. 497/2023 in WP(C) No. 40245/2022. 2) Heard. The applicant had cleared the arrears of KL 05 P 824, and had produced the records of the incoming vehicle KL 08 AJ 2244. The vehicle covered by the permit has attained 20 years of age as on 17/06/2023, set for Ordinary Service stage carriages. Due to the age restriction, the vehicle KL 05 P 824 has become unsuitable for operation and was laid up under continuous Form G. On filed with later model stage carriage KL 08 AJ 2244, owned by the permit holder himself and there is no material difference. Hence replacement of vehicle is allowed with direction to the Secretary to endorse the granted renewal of permit, subject to the production of NOC from financier, if applicable, clearance of Govt. dues if any and remittance of application fees, if not paid.”
4. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Usman v. Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram & Another [2015(4) KHC 779].
5. This writ petition is not in a public interest litigation.
Petitioner is a competitor operator. No fundamental or legal rights of the petitioner get violated in renewing the permit of the 3 rd respondent and making endorsement with the new vehicle in place of old vehicle. Without endorsing with the new vehicle on the permit of the 3rd respondent, the permit would have been useless inasmcuh as the old vehicle has become inoperative. Therefore, the Authority, after taking into consideration the condition of old vehicle, has made the endorsement of the new vehicle. I do not think that the authority has taken the decision arbitrarily or in violation of any statutory prescription of Motor Vehicle Act or the rules framed thereunder. Thus, I find no substance in this writ petition. It is dismissed. Sd/- Dinesh Kumar Singh, Judge sou. APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32225/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 05.10.2018. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT'S SERVICE DATED NIL. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE VEHICLE KL 05 P 824 OBTAINED FROM THE SITE OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES DEPARTMENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP[C] NO.40245 OF 2022 DATED 16.12.2022. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DATED 11.4.2023 FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN R.P. NO.497 OF 2023 DATED 26.5.2023. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE AGENDA IN ITEM NO.13 DATED 12.7.2023. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE RTA, THRISSUR DATED 12.7.2023 IN SUPPLEMENTARY ITEM NO.13. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE DICTUM IN USMAN VS RTA 2015 [4] KHC 779 [2015[4] KLT 25]. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN PRASAD VS RTA, ERNAKULAM, 2005 KHC 564 [2005[2] KLT 227].