Allowed

Saidalavi v. the Secretary

Kerala HC6 Oct 2016WP(C)/10617/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought regular carriage permit for an autorickshaw but was rejected on saturation grounds despite no notification restricting permits in Malappuram District. Court held power to restrict lies with State Government via notification and quashed the rejection orders.

What did the court decide?

Orders Ext.P3 and P9 quashed; respondents directed to regularise petitioner's permit within one month.

Saidalavi Vs the Secretary — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/14TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 10617 of 2013 (B)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SAIDALAVI, NARANGATHODI HOUSE, PANDIKKAD ROAD, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.SAJU J.VALLYARA

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM, PIN-676 505.

¶11

2. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MALAPPURAM, PIN-676 505.

¶12

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.PAUL VARGHESE

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

WP(C).No. 10617 of 2013 (B)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

EXT.P1 -	PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 15-1-2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT
EXT.P2 -	PHOTOCOPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 15-1-2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT
EXT.P3 -	PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER NO.C11/10499/2013M DATED 15-1-2013.
EXT.P4 -	PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM IN M.V.A.A.NO.39/2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
EXT.P5 -	PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTIFICATION VIDE G.O.(P)NO.68/92/PW&T DATED 28-7-1992
EXTP6 -	PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN M.V.A.A.NO.453/2012 DATED 9- 1-2013 OF THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL.
EXT.P7 -	PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.3263/2013 DATED 4-2- 2013
EXT.P8-	PHOTOCOPY OF THE CONTRACT CARRIAGE PERMIT IN RESPECT OF AUTORICKSHAW KL-11-S-8816 VIDE PERMIT NO. P.CO 10/1449/2013.
EXT.P9 -	PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN M.V.A.A.NO..39/2013 DATED 27-3-2013 OF THE S.T.A.T.

¶19

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶25

=========================

¶26

W.P.(C).No.10617/2013

¶27

¶28

Dated this the 6^th day of October, 2016

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

The petitioner is the owner of an autorickshaw bearing

¶31

registration No.KL-11/S-8816. He applied for regular carriage permit

¶32

to operate the above autorickshaw on all public roads in Malappuram

¶33

District with halt at Manjeri Municipality. His application has been

¶34

declined as per Ext.P3 by the Secretary, Road Transport Authority (for

¶35

short, “RTA”), Malappuram District. The reason stated in the order is

¶36

that the RTA, Malappuram as per the decision dated 21.10.2004 had restricted issuance of fresh permit in municipalities and town areas as

¶37

it is already over saturated.

¶38

Aggrieved by the order of rejection passed by the RTA,

¶39

Malappuram, the petitioner approached the State Transport

¶40

W.P.(C).No.10617/2013

¶41

-:2:-

¶42

Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam in appeal. The State Transport

¶43

Appellate Tribunal also affirmed the decision of the RTA as per Ext.P9

¶44

judgment. That judgment is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶45

However, it is to be noted that the petitioner has

¶46

approached this court in W.P.(C).No.3263 of 2013 while his appeal

¶47

was pending before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam and this court by Ext.P7 judgment dated 4.2.2013 directed

¶48

the RTA to issue permit provisionally, subject to the outcome of the

¶49

appeal. Therefore, on the strength of the order of this court, a permit

¶50

was issued to the petitioner as evident from Ext.P8. It is evident from

¶51

Ext.P8 that the validity of the permit would expire only on 4.3.2018.

¶52

This court while admitting this writ petition also granted

¶53

an interim relief to the petitioner to enable the petitioner to operate

¶54

the autorickshaw based on Ext.P8 permit till further orders.

¶55

W.P.(C).No.10617/2013

¶56

-:3:-

¶57

The learned counsel for the petitioner citing the judgment

¶58

of this court in W.P.(C).No.19817 of 2013 would submit that in the

¶59

absence of any notification under Section 74(3)(a) of the Motor

¶60

Vehicles Act, 1988 it is not permissible for the Road Transport Officer

¶61

or the RTA to impose restrictions in issuing permits in Municipal

¶62

areas. He would further submit that the State Government had

¶63

further issued a notification as per Ext.P5 to limit the number of

¶64

contract carriages including autorickshaws in the routes operating in

¶65

the cities of Kozhikode, Kochi and Thiruvananthapuram to the extent

¶66

notified therein which does not include Manjeri Town or Malappuram

¶67

District. Therefore, it is argued that in the absence of any notification as against Malappuram District, the Secretary, RTA, Malappuram

¶68

cannot restrict issuance of permits.

¶69

W.P.(C).No.10617/2013

¶70

-:4:-

¶71

Section 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 refers to grant

¶72

of contract carriage permits. Section 74(3)(a) reads as follows:

¶73

“74(3)(a) The State Government shall, if so directed by the Central Government, having regard to the number of vehicles, road conditions and other relevant matters, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct a State Transport Authority and a Regional Transport Authority to limit the number of contract carriages generally or of any specified type as may be fixed and specified in the notification, operating on city routes in towns with a population of not less than five lakhs.

¶74

(b) Where the number of contract carriages are fixed under clause (a), the Regional Transport Authority shall, in considering an application for the grant of permit in respect of any such contract carriage, have regard to the following matters, namely :-

¶75

(i) financial stability of the applicant;

¶76

(ii) satisfactory performance as a contract carriage operator including payment of tax if the applicant is or has been an operator of contract carriages ; and (iii) such other matters as may be prescribed by the State Government:

¶77

Provided that, other conditions being equal, preference shall be given to applications for permits from –

¶78

(i) the India Tourism Development Corporation ;

¶79

W.P.(C).No.10617/2013

¶80

-:5:-

¶81

(ii) State Tourism Development Corporation ;

¶82

(iii) State Tourism Departments ;

¶83

(iv) State Transport undertakings ;

¶84

(v) Co-operative societies registered or deemed to have been registered under any enactment for the time being in force ;

¶85

(vi) ex-servicemen.”

¶86

A mere reading of Section 74(3)(a) would indicate that the power to

¶87

restrict issuance of contract carriage permit to operate on city routes

¶88

in town is vested with the State Government.

¶89

Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel

¶90

for the petitioner, in the absence of any notification, the Secretary,

¶91

RTA, Malappuram cannot restrict issuance of number of vehicles to

¶92

operate on city routes in Malappuram District. Admittedly, Manjeri

¶93

Town or Malappuram District are not figured in the notification.

¶94

Therefore, I am of the view that Exts.P3 and P9 have to be quashed

¶95

and set aside. Accordingly, they are quashed and set aside. In the

¶96

W.P.(C).No.10617/2013

¶97

-:6:-

¶98

light of the provisional permit already granted, there shall be a

¶99

direction to the respondents to regularise the permit, at any rate,

¶100

within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this

¶101

judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.

¶102

Sd/-

¶103

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

¶104

Saidalavi v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saidalavi v. the Secretary

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

S,Santha Raju Vs Smt. Mary Kutty

Binzin Jose Vs the Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad

K.v.Muraleedharan Vs E.K.Majhi

C.R Bhavadas Vs Smt Sudha

T. Antony Xavier Vs Shri. C.K.Prakash

Thomas George and Another Vs State of Kerala & 5 Others