Allowed

Thilakan v. the Regional Transport Authority

Kerala HC30 Nov 2012WP(C)/18283/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court held that the Regional Transport Authority cannot decline to consider contract carriage permit applications for autorikshaws in Thrissur Corporation limits absent a specific State Government notification. Consequently, the court quashed the order rejecting the petitioner's variation application and directed the authority to grant the requested change in parking location withi

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejected on merits is set aside. The petitioner is directed to the 2nd respondent to grant the variation of parking place sought in Ext. P3 within one month.

Thilakan Vs the Regional Transport Authority — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/9TH AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 18283 of 2012 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

THILAKAN, S/O. KUTTAPPAN, RESIDING AT 3/30 KOZHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PULLAZI.P.O THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 012.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY THRISSUR - 680 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶11

2. THE SECRETARY

¶12

REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR - 680 001.

¶13

3. THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,

¶14

THRISSUR - 680 001.

¶15

BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.G.GOPAKUMAR

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No. 18283 of 2012 (I)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶20

EXHIBIT-P1-TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF VEHICLE NO. KL 08 AF 5136

¶21

EXHIBIT-P2-TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT DATED 01/12/2011 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR.

¶22

EXHIBIT-P3-TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF PERMIT DATED 19/12/2011 MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶23

EXHIBIT-P4-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 8I/197312/2011 DATED 19/12/2011 PASSED BY THE IST RESPONDENT REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶24

EXHIBIT-P5-TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 05/01/2012 IN W.P(C) 34871/2010

¶25

EXHIBIT-P6-TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03/04/2012 IN W.P(C)3568/2012

¶26

EXHIBIT-P7-TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. C1/97313/2011 DATED 04/06/2012 SIGNED ON 20/07/2012.

¶27

EXHIBIT-P8-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.8/197313/2011 DATED 06.08.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶28

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

dlk

HARUN-UL-RASHID,J.

¶33

W.P.(C).NO. 18283 OF 2012

¶34

DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2012

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

The writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext. P8 order and for a direction to direct the 2^nd respondent to grant the variation sought for in Ext. P3 in the light of Ext. P5 judgment passed by this Court.

¶37

The petitioner is an autorikshaw operator and is residing

¶38

within the limits of Thrissur Corporation. He is a grantee of a contract carriage permit for operating his autorikshaw bearing registration No.KL 08 AF 5136. The petitioner is aggrieved by the condition attached to Ext. P2 permit whereby even though the vehicle was permitted to ply in all fit roads in Thrissur District, a restriction was imposed for parking or picking up passengers within the Thrissur Corporation limits. Permit is valid till 30.11.2016. The petitioner applied for variation of the conditions of Ext. P2 permit. The petitioner has sought for a change of parking place from PP Puzhakkal Shoba

¶39

-2-

¶40

W.P.(C).No.18283/2012

¶41

City as granted in Ext. P2 to Olari Centre, Corporation Area. Ext. P3 is the copy of application for variation of the conditions of permit dated 19.04.2011. The 1^st respondent rejected the application by Ext. P4 decision stating that as per a decision dated 11.05.2010, the RTA, Thrissur had resolved that no autorikshaw permit with parking place within the Corporation limit will be issued. The other reason stated by the RTA is the pendency of writ petition before this Court as W.P.(C). No. 34871/2010, wherein the decision of the RTA Thrissur taken on 11.05.2010 was under challenge.

¶42

It is submitted that the writ petition referred in Ext. P4 order was disposed of on 05.01.2012, the date of passing Ext. P4 order. Following the judgment in W.P.(C). No. 9258/2011, this Court held that in the absence of a notification issued by the State Government under Clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 74 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 in respect of the Thrissur Corporation, the RTA cannot decline to consider applications for

¶43

-3-

¶44

W.P.(C).No.18283/2012

¶45

contract carriage permits to operate autorikshaws in Thrissur Corporation limits. This Court had also taken note of the fact that

¶46

the Thrissur Corporation is not included in the notification G.O.(P) No. 68/92/PW&T dated 28.07.1992 issued by the State Government under sub-section (3) of Section 73 of the Act. Therefore this Court held that the decision taken by the RTA, Thrissur on 11.05.2011 resolving, not to issue further permits for autorikshaws within the Thrissur Corporation is illegal. Ext. P5 is the copy of the judgment dated 05.01.2012 passed in W.P.(C). No. 34871/2010.

¶47

I have perused Ext. P8 order passed by the Secretary, RTA. The petitioner submits that Ext. P8 decision is patently illegal mainly contending that the decision taken on 11.05.2010 referred in Ext. P8 is not in force. Taking note of the similar contentions raised, this Court in Ext. P5 judgment held that in the absence of a notification issued by the State Government under Clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 74 of the Motor Vehicles

¶48

-4-

¶49

W.P.(C).No.18283/2012

¶50

Act, the RTA cannot decline to consider the application for contract carriage permits to operate autorikshaws in the

¶51

Corporation limits.

¶52

The writ petition is allowed, Ext. P8 order is set aside. There will be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to grant the variation sought for in Ext. P3 application within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶53

Sd/- HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE.

¶54

DCS

Thilakan v. the Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thilakan v. the Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.P.Padmini Vs Dharmadam Service Co-Operative Bank

P.S.Babu Raj Vs Alappey Co-Operative Spinning Mills Ltd.

Sunny Das & Another Vs the Joint Registrar (G) Co-Op. Societies

K.P.Francis Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur

K.N. Security & Allied Services (P) Ltd. Vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation

Babu K.Y. Vs the Regional Transport Authority