Dismissed

P.V Chacko v. the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority.

Kerala HC1 Feb 2017WA/205/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal challenged a judgment granting a temporary permit to the second respondent. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Secretary of the RTA had delegated power to grant the permit and the earlier precedent was distinguishable due to the obtained sister authority concurrence.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed, upholding the grant of the temporary permit to the second respondent.

P.V Chacko Vs the Secretary, Regional… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR

¶4

& THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/12TH MAGHA, 1938

¶6

WA. NO.205 of 2017() IN WP(C).2533/2017

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 25-01-2017 IN WP(C) NO.2533/2017.

¶8

APPELLANT(S)/IMPEADING PETITIONER ADD.R2 AND R3:

¶9

1. P.V CHACKO, PULLATHIL HOUSE, THELLAKOM P.O., KOTTAYAM.

¶10

(WITH STAGE CARRIAGE KL 55/6915)

¶11

2. P.J.LUKOSE, PLACKIYEL HOUSE, PERUMBAIKADU P.O., KOTTAYAM-16.

¶12

(WITH STAGE CARRIAGE KL 5/P 9399)

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN

¶14

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER IN WPC:

¶15

1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY. KOTTAYAM - 686 001.

¶16

2. M.K.MINIMOL, MUTHEDATH HOUSE, MEVALLOOR P.O. KOTTAYAM - 686 609.

¶17

R2 BY ADV.SRI.P.DEEPAK R1 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.TEKCHAND

¶18

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR, C.J. &

¶20

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J

W.A. No.205 of 2017

Dated this the 1^st day of February, 2017

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Mohan M.Shantanagoudar, C.J.

¶27

The judgment dated 25.01.2017 in W.P(C) No.2533 of 2017 is called in question in this appeal by respondents 2 and 3 therein.

¶28

Records reveal that the second respondent, the writ petitioner, applied for grant of regular permit to operate a stage carriage service on an inter-regional route. Along with that, an application for temporary permit to operate services on the route was also preferred by the second respondent. During the subsistence of the application for grant of regular permit, the second respondent was granted temporary permit for 20 days duration and consequently, she was operating the service on the route in question on the strength of temporary permits.

¶29

It is seen that concurrence was sought on the application preferred by the second respondent for grant of temporary permit from the sister Regional Transport Authority and the same is granted as per Exhibit P5. Based on Exhibit P5, the second respondent approached this Court by filing W.P(C) No.2533 of 2017

¶30

WA.205/17

¶31

-:2:-

¶32

seeking a direction to the Secretary of Regional Transport Authority (RTA) to grant temporary permit applied for by her. The said writ petition came to be allowed by the impugned judgment.

¶33

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Secretary, RTA has no power to grant temporary permits inasmuch as it is the RTA, who has locus standi to grant temporary permits. The said contention cannot be accepted in view of the delegation of power as contained under Rule 133(1)(m) of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Under the said provision, the RTA, for the prompt and convenient despatch of business, has delegated the power to grant temporary permit under sub-section (7) of Section 88 of the Act to the Secretary. Undisputedly, the power to grant of temporary permit in this matter falls within the purview of Section 88(7) of the Act. In view of the same, learned single Judge is justified in allowing the writ petition.

¶34

This Court in the case of Benny Mathew v. Mohanan [1999 (2) KLT 595] has held that the Secretary of the RTA has no power to issue temporary permits for four months duration in the inter-regional routes without the concurrence of the sister Regional Transport Authorities. However, the said decision is not applicable

¶35

-:3:-

¶36

WA.205/17

¶37

to the facts of this case inasmuch as concurrence from the sister RTA is obtained as per Exhibit P5. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. We do so.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Chief Justice

¶40

Sd/Anil K. Narendran, Judge

¶41

krj.1/2

P.V Chacko v. the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.V Chacko v. the Secretary, 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

Ayana Charitable Trust Vs N. Ramachandran IPS

Suo Motu Vs Shri. Anil Kumar

M/S.Indusland Bank Ltd. Vs Antony K.V

B.Reghu Vs State Bank of Travancore

M/S.Vijaya Hospitality & Resorts Ltd. Vs the Chairman and Managing Director

Neethu Venugopal Vs Union of Inidia