Disposed

Sunny Joseph v. Regional Transport Authority

Kerala HC12 Aug 2016WP(C)/23166/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a writ petition challenging the rejection of a permit variation application and the Tribunal's affirming judgment. The court directed the Regional Transport Authority to re-consider the application at its next meeting, considering specific grounds such as the withdrawal of the additional trip request and the un-conversion to limited stop service for short dista

What did the court decide?

Permit petitioner not pressing additional trip but seeking service variation. Authority to re-consider application, taking note of un-pressing of additional trip and operation not exceeding 140 kms.

Sunny Joseph Vs Regional Transport Authority — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/21ST SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 23166 of 2016 (U)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SUNNY JOSEPH, PETTAKKATTU HOUSE, MANNACKANADU P.O., KOTTAYAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM-686 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶11

2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM-686 002.

¶12

3. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KOTTAYAM-686 004.

¶13

R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.PAUL VARGHESE. R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.CHACKO, SC.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

rs.

¶16

WP(C).No. 23166 of 2016 (U)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶19

EXT. P1	TRUE COPY OF REGULAR PERMIT IN RESPECT OF STAGE CARRIAGE NO. KL-11/X-3137.
EXT. P2	TRUE COPY OF DECISION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 31.08.2015.
EXT. P3	TRUE COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BEFORE THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AS M.V.A.A. NO. 226/2015.
EXT. P4	TRUE COPY OF ENQUIRY REPORT RELATING TO THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXT. P5	TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 25.05.2015 IN M.V.A.A. NO. 226 OF 2015 OF THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL.

¶20

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-

¶21

EXT.R3A COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 08/02/2016 ISSUED BY THE STATE OF KERALA.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶26

W.P.(C) No.23166 of 2016

¶27

Dated this the 12^th day of August, 2016

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Ext.P2 order passed by the 1^st respondent and also Ext.P5 judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal [for short, 'the Tribunal'], affirming Ext.P2 order of the 1^st respondent, and for other related reliefs. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are thus:

¶30

Petitioner is the holder of a regular permit to

¶31

operate service in respect of stage carriage bearing No.KL11/X-3137, which is issued in the year 1992 and was being renewed from time to time, and at present valid up to 19.11.2017, evident from Ext.P1.

¶32

Petitioner submitted an application for variation of condition of permit in view of the changed circumstances arose during the past years. Petitioner sought extension of the service from Irumpoonikkara to Mukkoottuthara which is a totally ill-served area having a distance of 4.3 Kms. The present distance of the route is 103.5 Kms., which is a long

¶33

¶34

W.P.(C) No.23166 of 2016

¶35

distance route and because of the stoppage of the vehicle on each and every stop, the same causes much inconvenience and hardship to the long distance passengers. On the portion between Kappad and Pala, now the service is operating via Paika and Edamattam. However, if the service is operated through Pinnakkanad, Thidanad, Erattupetta and Bharananganam by allowing a deviation, the same will be more beneficial to the travelling public, especially for pilgrims who are travelling from various places. Petitioner also sought an additional trip during noon time from Pala to Kanjirappally which is a portion of the route itself. It was thus seeking variation of condition of permit, the request was made.

¶36

First respondent considered the application in its meeting held on 31.08.2015, however the request for additional trip between Pala and Kanjirappally sought for by the petitioner was not pressed in the meeting, is the contention of the petitioner. By order dated 31.08.2015, 1^st respondent rejected the application stating that 1.9 Kms. from Kottaramattam Junction to Lalam Junction overlaps KottayamKattappana scheme, and as per Clause 19 of the scheme, the right to operate new service and to increase the trip in the 31

¶37

¶38

W.P.(C) No.23166 of 2016

¶39

routes in Annexure or its portion will be reserved exclusively for State Transport Undertaking. According to the petitioner, the above reasoning is absolutely without any merits since the petitioner is already operating service there, and the additional trip sought by him, which is objectionable, was not pressed before the 1^st respondent itself, which was not taken note of by the 1^st respondent. With respect to the request for limited stop facility it was found, there is no such term as 'Limited Stop Ordinary Service' (LSOS) in the Motor Vehicles Act. It is further stated that, short distance passengers including students will be badly affected. The order passed by the 1^st respondent is produced as Ext.P2.

¶40

Aggrieved by Ext.P2, petitioner has filed appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has affirmed the order as per Ext.P5, which is under challenge before this Court.

¶41

Third respondent has filed a counter affidavit justifying Ext.P2 order and Ext.P5 judgment. That apart, it is contended that, the variation of regular permit and the extension sought for from Pala to Kanjirappally is in violation of Clauses 5(c) and 19 of the notification dated 14.07.2009, which says that the right to operate in the new service and to

¶42

W.P.(C) No.23166 of 2016 4

¶43

increase the trip in the 31 routes in the Annexure or its portion will be reserved exclusively for State Transport Undertaking. That apart, it is contended that, the extension portion 1.9 kms. from Kottaramattom bus stand to Lalam Junction objectionably overlaps the Kottayam-Kattappana notified route. So also, it is contended that, variation of service as 'limited stop ordinary service' is not maintainable and the variation will create isolated island of the rural areas of Kottayam district, and it will adversely affect the short distance passengers including students etc. So also, in terms of Ext.R3(a) dated 08.02.2016, existing ordinary service cannot be converted as limited stop ordinary service. Therefore, the 3^rd respondent submits that no manner of interference is required in the judgment passed by the Tribunal or Ext.P2 order passed by the 1^st respondent.

¶44

Petitioner has filed a reply affidavit reiterating the

¶45

stand adopted in the writ petition. So also, it is contended that, the notification dated 08.02.2016 is applicable only to routes having a distance of 140 kms. Therefore, the contentions raised by the 3^rd respondent with respect to the claim of the petitioner to operate as limited stop ordinary service, based on the said notification cannot be sustained.

¶46

W.P.(C) No.23166 of 2016

¶47

¶48

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent Corporation, perused the pleadings and documents on record.

¶49

The thrust of the contention put forth by learned counsel for the petitioner is that even though the Tribunal has permitted the petitioner to file any modified application for variation of permit excluding any proposal for variation or extension of service on any notified route, certain findings in the judgment of the Tribunal will interdict the authority concerned from considering the application taking into account the request made by the petitioner. Learned counsel has pointed out, in the judgment, it was found that the curtailment of route proposed will not much affect the existing travelling public. However, the finding in the impugned order is otherwise. That apart, it is contended by the learned counsel that, so far as distance in respect of 1.9 kms., addition sought

¶50

for was not pressed by the petitioner before the 1^st respondent itself, and therefore the finding with respect to the same may not stand in the way of the application being considered by the

¶51

1^st respondent in terms of the judgment of the Tribunal.

¶52

¶53

W.P.(C) No.23166 of 2016

¶54

Admittedly, there are other findings approving the finding of the 1^st respondent in Ext.P2, which according to the learned counsel, will stand in the way while the application is reconsidered by the authority as directed by the Tribunal.

¶55

Learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent has pointed out that if the petitioner is not pressing the application for additional trip sought for, 1^st respondent can consider the same in accordance with law. So also, learned counsel has pointed out that as per Ext.R3(a) notification, petitioner is not entitled to operate the vehicle as 'limited stop ordinary service'. However, as discussed above, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the said notification applies only to vehicles operating exceeding 140 kms.

¶56

Taking into account the totality of the circumstances, I think it is only appropriate that the 1^st respondent is directed to re-consider the application submitted by the petitioner, taking note of the fact that petitioner is not pressing the 1.9 km. additional trip and the other circumstances put forth with respect to operation of limited stop ordinary service below 140 kms. and untrammelled by any other observations contained in Ext.P2 order and Ext.P5

¶57

W.P.(C) No.23166 of 2016

¶58

¶59

judgment of the Tribunal and in accordance with law, at the next meeting of the 1^st respondent. It is also made clear that, Ext.P4 route enquiry report shall also be taken into account while re-considering the application, and afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the 3^rd respondent.

¶60

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶61

Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶62

//true copy//

¶63

P.S. to Judge

¶64

St/12.08.2016

Sunny Joseph v. Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunny Joseph v. Regional Transport Authority

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

Nitc Multipurpose Co-Op. Society Vs Chandran Nair

Shiaymol Thomas Vs the Kozhuvanal

Ivy Mary Jacob Vs Ambaloor Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Anil Kumar.G Vs Antony Chacko

Rejimon James Vs Registrar of Co-Operative Society

K.K.Abdul Gafoor Vs the Secretary