Remanded

P.K.Bose v. the Regional Transport Authority,Ernakulam

Kerala HC21 Jan 2013WP(C)/1960/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the rejection of his application to replace a 2007 model bus with a 2003 model bus. The High Court held that the transport authority erred in discretion by rejecting solely on the age gap without evaluating tangibles. The order quashed and remitted the matter. (Note: Subject tags inferred from context of corporate/vehicle authority, but none match the specific list exactl

What did the court decide?

The order of the Regional Transport Authority and State Transport Appellate Tribunal was set aside. The matter was remitted to the R.T.A. to reconsider within two months.

P.K.Bose Vs the Regional Transport Authority,Ernakulam — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2013/1ST MAGHA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 1960 of 2013 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

P.K.BOSE S/O. KARUMBAN, 2/601, PADAMUGALATH HOUSE VAZHAKKALA.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,ERNAKULAM-682030.

¶11

THE SECRETARY

¶12

REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,ERNAKULAM-682030.

¶13

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.M. SANEER

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO. 1960/2013

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶18

EXT.P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT VALID TILL 9-4-16
EXT.P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REPLACEMENT DATED 8-5-12.
EXT.P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 8-5-12 FILED ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION FOR REPLACEMENT DATED 8-5-12 FILED ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION FOR REPLACEMENT.
EXT.P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15-5-12 IN WPC NO. 11374/12.
EXT.P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 8-5-12.
EXT.P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10-8-12 IN MVARP NO. 256/12.
EXT.P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT SIGNED FOR COMMUNICATION ON 4-12-12.
EXT.P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL IN MVAA NO. 421 OF 2012.
EXT.P9	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21-12-12 IN MVAA NO. 421/12.

¶19

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

¶20

/TRUE COPY/

¶21

P.A. TO JUDGE.

¶22

V. CHITAMBARESH, J

¶23

WP(C) NO. 1960 OF 2013

¶24

Dated this the 21^st day of January, 2013

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2.

¶27

Section 83 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act for short) empowers the holder of the permit to replace any vehicle covered by the permit by any other vehicle of the same nature with the permission of the authority which granted the permit. Rule 174 (2) (c) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (the Rules for short) vests a discretion with the transport authority to reject the application for replacement if the new vehicle proposed is older than the one sought to be replaced. The question of exercising the discretion on the basis of the relevant inputs arises only when the new vehicle proposed is older than the one sought to be replaced and otherwise the request for replacement should be allowed in the normal course.

¶28

The petitioner has sought to replace a 2007 model stage carriage bus with a 2003 model stage carriage bus which

¶29

Page numbers

¶30

WP(C) No. 1960/2013

¶31

ofcourse has a higher seating capacity. The petitioner had submitted Ext.P3 comparison table along with Ext.P2 application for replacement wherein the merits and the demerits of the 2007 model and 2003 model vehicles have been detailed.

¶32

Neither the Regional Transport Authority nor the

¶33

State Transport Appellate Tribunal has adverted to the comparison table supplied by the petitioner along with the application for replacement in the exercise of discretion. The application for replacement has been rejected by both the authorities merely for the reason that a later model vehicle is sought to be replaced by an older vehicle eventhough such an exercise was permissible in law. The exercise of discretion should be based on tangible data and a bald rejection merely on the basis that a new vehicle is proposed to be replaced by an old vehicle cannot be sustained.

¶34

I set aside Ext.P7 order of the Regional Transport Authority as confirmed in Ext.P9 judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal rejecting the application for replacement of the vehicle by the petitioner. The matter stands remitted to the

¶35

Page numbers

¶36

WP(C) No. 1960/2013

¶37

file of the first respondent Regional Transport Authority who shall reconsider the issue after adverting to the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules and in the light of the observations as above. The needful shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶38

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶39

V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE

¶40

ncd

P.K.Bose v. the Regional Transport Authority,Ernakulam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.K.Bose v. the Regional Transport Authority,Ernakulam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shibu V.K. Vs the Assistant Labour Officer

K.P.Jayaprakash Vs the Secretary Regional Transport Authority

Kanaran Vs the Additional District Magistratre

Hamsa Vs Regional Transport Officer

Jaya S.Mamman Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Prakash Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kollam