Allowed

All Kerala Bus Operators Organization v. the Regional Transport Officer

Kerala HC11 Dec 2014WP(C)/21255/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the Regional Transport Officer's insistence on including standing passengers in insurance policies for motor vehicle tax. Court directed RTO to accept tax based on existing policies without commenting on statutory compliance regarding standing passengers.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent/RTO, Malappuram to accept tax payable in respect of the concerned buses/vehicles operated by the parties concerned as and when the same is tendered on the strength of

All Kerala Bus Operators Organization Vs the Regional… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 21255 of 2014 (F)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. ALL KERALA BUS OPERATORS ORGANIZATION, (TIRUR TALUK, COMMITTEE) BUS STAND BUILDING, TIRUR - 676 101, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, A.P.ABOOBACKER.

¶8

2. A.P.ABOOBACKER, AREEKKATTU PARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.KODAKKAL, TIRUR - 676 108.

¶9

3. K.ANITHA, W/O.SUMITHRAN, MANKUZHI HOUSE, P.O.NIRAMARATHUR, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM - 679 109.

¶10

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

¶11

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶12

1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, MALAPPURAM - 676 505.

¶13

2. M/S.NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITSBRANCH MANAGER - 676 101.

¶14

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BOBBY JOHN PULICKAPARAMBIL R2 BY SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SENIOR ADVOCATE) ADVS. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Msd.

¶17

WP(C).No. 21255 of 2014 (F)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

EXT.P-1: TRUE COPY OF THE INSURANCE POLICY ISSUED RELATING TO BUS NO.KL-55L-1592 OWNED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER WHICH IS VALID UPTO 23.07.2015

¶21

EXT.P-2: TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT RELATING TO THE VEHICLE MENTIONED IN EXHIBIT P-1 WHICH IS VALID UPTO 14.06.2015.

¶22

EXT.P-3: TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE RELATING TO VEHICLE MENTIONED IN EXHIBIT.P-1.

¶23

EXT.P-4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 01.08.2014 SENT BY THE 1ST PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶30

W.P.(C)No.21255 OF 2014

¶31

......................................................................... Dated this the 11^th December, 2014

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

The petitioners have approached this Court with the

¶34

following prayers:

¶35

i) issue a writ of mandamus any other appropriate writ or order commanding the first respondent to accept motor vehicle tax for the buses operated by the members of the first petitioner association including petitioners 2 and 3 without insisting for inclusion of standing passengers in the insurance policies produced by the operators for payment of motor vehicle tax. ii) issue a writ of mandamus any other appropriate writ or order restraining the first respondent from insisting for production of insurance policy in excess of the seating capacity prescribed in the respective registration certificates and permits of the stage carriage operators in Malappuram District. And

¶36

iii) to pass such other orders or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice.”

¶37

A statement has been filed on behalf of the first

¶38

respondent. Paragraph '2' of which reads as follows:

¶39

¶40

W.P.(C)No.21255 OF 2014

¶41

“2. This office has taken all steps to include passenger capacity (both seating and standing ) of the vehicle in stage carriage permit document and notices have been issued to all operators of the district to submit their permit for endorsing the passenger capacity in their permit document. There is no restriction to pay tax for the stage carriage operators and they can pay tax with the existing insurance policy documents and this authority never refuses to accept tax because of the production of policy document without the endorsement for standing passengers.”

¶42

The learned Government Pleader submits that the contention of the petitioners that no policy is required to be taken to cover the standing passengers is not correct and that policy is required to be taken in respect of all passengers , by virtue of Section 147(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

¶43

After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Counsel for the second respondent/New India Assurance Co.Ltd. and the learned Government Pleader , this Court finds that the matter can be disposed of in terms of Ext.P2. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the first respondent/RTO, Malappuram to accept tax payable in respect of the concerned

¶44

¶45

W.P.(C)No.21255 OF 2014

¶46

buses/vehicles operated by the parties concerned as and when the same is tendered on the strength of existing policies. This Court does not express anything with regard to the plea set up by the petitioners as to the requirement of the policy to be taken in terms of Section 147(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

¶47

The petitioners shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the concerned respondent for further steps.

¶48

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶49

All Kerala Bus Operators Organization v. the Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

All Kerala Bus Operators Organization v. the Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.O.Johnson Vs Commercial Tax Officer

Elavakkattu Ceramics Vs Authorised Officer

Saleem Hassainar @ Sali Vs Authorized Officer, the Federal Bank Ltd.

Reeja Vs the Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Abida Rashid Vs Bank of India

Suraj A.V. Vs the Intelligence Officer