V.K. Santhosh Vs. the Regional Transport Authority, Muvattupuzha - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1136181
CourtKerala High Court
Decided OnMar-25-2014
JudgeHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
AppellantV.K. Santhosh
RespondentThe Regional Transport Authority, Muvattupuzha
Excerpt:
in the high court of kerala at ernakulam present: the honourable mr.justice k.vinod chandran tuesday, the25h day of march20144th chaithra, 1936 wp(c).no. 8554 of 2014 (t) --------------------------- petitioner(s): -------------------------- v.k. santhosh, vanthurarambil house, inchathotty p.o, kothamangalam, by adv. sri.p.deepak respondent(s): ---------------------------- the regional transport authority, muvattupuzha, rerpesented by its secretary muvattupuzha -686661 by government pleader sri. joseph george this writ petition (civil) having come up for admission on2503-2014, the court on the same day delivered the following: wp(c).no. 8554 of 2014 (t) --------------------------- appendix petitioner(s)' exhibits ------------------------------------- exhibit p1 true copy of the proceedings of the respondent dated06 01-2014 exhibit p2 a true copy of the decision of the honorable supreme court in2010(4) klt597(ismeth ummer v regional transport authority) //true copy// p.a. to judge k.vinod chandran, j - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - w.p.(c).no. 8554 of 2014 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - dated 25th march, 2014 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - judgment the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the rta to refuse his application for fresh regular permit only on the basis that he has neither offered a vehicle to be operated in the route nor has he offered the "specific description" of the vehicle. the rta also relies on a decision of the honourable supreme court reported in ismeth ummer v. regional transport authority (2010 (4) klt597[sc]) to hold that at least, the "specific description" of the vehicle should be offered to the rta before a grant is made.2. looking at ext.p2, there is absolutely no direction that the rta should consider the permit application only after the "specified description" of the vehicle is put forth. in wp(c).8554/14 2 fact, the issue agitated therein was with respect to whether the rta could prescribe that a stage carriage, which is more than 15 years, could not be plied in a regular permit. while the operators contended that, this was a prescription which was required to be made by the government, the honourable supreme court held that the rta also could prescribe such conditions since on completion of 15 years, fitness of the vehicle would expire. this court is of the opinion that such decision does not at all mandate that an application for regular permit has to be considered only after the description of the vehicle is put forth to the rta.3. in fact, the motor vehicles act, 1988 says otherwise and the requirement for offering a vehicle is only at the time of settlement of timings before the secretary, rta. after the wp(c).8554/14 3 grant of the permit, the permit holder is obliged to produce the current records of the vehicle, on condition of which alone, settlement of timings would be carried out by the secretary, rta. this court had occasion to take such a view in aboobacker v. rta (2005 (1) klt987. in such circumstances ext.p1 is set aside. the petitioner shall produce a certified copy of this judgment along with a certified copy of the afore cited judgment before the rta so that the rta could consider the same, in accordance with law and grant the permit within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment, provided it is otherwise in order. writ petition disposed of. sd/- k.vinod chandran, judge mrcs
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE25H DAY OF MARCH20144TH CHAITHRA, 1936 WP(C).No. 8554 of 2014 (T) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- V.K. SANTHOSH, VANTHURARAMBIL HOUSE, INCHATHOTTY P.O, KOTHAMANGALAM, BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MUVATTUPUZHA, RERPESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MUVATTUPUZHA -686661 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. JOSEPH GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2503-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 8554 of 2014 (T) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RESPONDENT DATED06 01-2014 EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT IN2010(4) KLT597(ISMETH UMMER V REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY) //True Copy// P.A. To Judge K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 8554 of 2014 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 25th March, 2014 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT

The petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the RTA to refuse his application for fresh regular permit only on the basis that he has neither offered a vehicle to be operated in the route nor has he offered the "specific description" of the vehicle. The RTA also relies on a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in Ismeth Ummer v. Regional Transport Authority (2010 (4) KLT597[SC]) to hold that at least, the "specific description" of the vehicle should be offered to the RTA before a grant is made.

2. Looking at Ext.P2, there is absolutely no direction that the RTA should consider the permit application only after the "specified description" of the vehicle is put forth. In WP(C).8554/14 2 fact, the issue agitated therein was with respect to whether the RTA could prescribe that a stage carriage, which is more than 15 years, could not be plied in a regular permit. While the operators contended that, this was a prescription which was required to be made by the Government, the Honourable Supreme court held that the RTA also could prescribe such conditions since on completion of 15 years, fitness of the vehicle would expire. This Court is of the opinion that such decision does not at all mandate that an application for regular permit has to be considered only after the description of the vehicle is put forth to the RTA.

3. In fact, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 says otherwise and the requirement for offering a vehicle is only at the time of settlement of timings before the Secretary, RTA. After the WP(C).8554/14 3 grant of the permit, the permit holder is obliged to produce the current records of the vehicle, on condition of which alone, settlement of timings would be carried out by the Secretary, RTA. This Court had occasion to take such a view in Aboobacker v. RTA (2005 (1) KLT987. In such circumstances Ext.P1 is set aside. The petitioner shall produce a certified copy of this judgment along with a certified copy of the afore cited judgment before the RTA so that the RTA could consider the same, in accordance with law and grant the permit within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment, provided it is otherwise in order. Writ petition disposed of. Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN, Judge Mrcs