The appellant challenged an interim order declining a request to renew a vehicle fitness certificate without adhering to a uniform colour code imposed by the State Transport Authority. The High Court held that prima facie the RТА had the power under Rule 264 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, to enforce such a code.
Writ Appeal dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ANTONY DOMINIC &
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1939
WA.No.394 of 2018 IN WPC.4098/2018
AGAINST THE ORDER IN WP(C)4098/2018 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 06-02-2018
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
P.L.JOHNSON S/O.LONACHAN, PADAMANDAN HOUSE, UDAYANAGAR, THRISSUR 05.
BY ADV.SRI.P.DEEPAK
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ANTONY DOMINIC, C.J. & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Writ Appeal No.394 of 2018
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of March, 2018
JUDGMENT
Antony Dominic, C.J.
Petitioner in W.P.(C)No.4098/18 is the appellant. In this appeal, he challenges the order dated 6th February 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby his prayer to direct the fourth respondent to renew the certificate of fitness of his contract carriage vehicle untrammeled by Ext.P5 decision of the State Transport Authority to introduce a 'uniform colour code' was declined by the learned Single Judge.
Writ Appeal No.394 of 2018
: 2 :
provisions of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or the Rules framed thereunder empower the State Transport Authority to introduce a 'uniform colour code' as ordered in Ext.P5. In support of this plea, counsel referred us to the various provisions of the Act and the Rules and also several judicial precedents. These submissions made by the learned counsel were contradicted by both the learned Government Pleader and the counsel appearing for the party respondents and according to them, it was well within the power of the State Transport Authority to introduce such a 'uniform color code' having regard to the provisions contained in Rule 264 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. They also placed reliance on the judgment of this court in Kasaragod District Bus Owners Association v. Regional Transport Authority, Kasaragod and others [2015 (1) KHC 156] .
Writ Appeal No.394 of 2018
: 3 :
outset, we may clarify that what is impugned before us is only an interim order and the learned Single Judge is yet to consider the rival submissions which are made by the parties and render a judgment on the merits of the matter. Therefore, at this stage, if we examine the contentions now raised by both sides that will be an adjudication on the merits of an issue which is pending consideration of the learned Single Judge. Therefore, all that we endeavor to is only prima facie examination of the matter.
Writ Appeal No.394 of 2018
: 4 :
Vehicles Rules shown by the learned counsel for the appellant to contend that while restrictions have been placed on the colour of buses owned by educational institutions, goods carriages and motor cabs there is no such prescription insofar as contract carriages are concerned, we find that Rule 264, prima facie, indicate that the paint work of every transport vehicles shall be maintained in accordance with the specifications, if any, laid down by the State or the Regional Transport Authority. This has already been taken note of in Kasaragod District Bus Owners Association's case (supra) where the 'uniform colour code' introduced by the Regional Transport Authority was under challenge. The Apex Court in the judgment in Subhash Chandra and others v. State of U.P. and others (1980) 2 SCC 324 also took the view that even in the
Writ Appeal No.394 of 2018
: 5 :
absence of any rules, it is within the domain of the authorities to issue such prescriptions.
declining the order sought for by the appellant.
Appeal fails and it is dismissed accordingly.
SD/- ANTONY DOMINIC, CHIEF JUSTICE
SD/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE
jes
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the learned Single Judge committed an error in declining to direct the Regional Transport Authority to renew the certificate of fitness untrammeled by the introduction of a uniform colour code
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kasaragod District Bus Owners Association v. Regional Transport Authority, Kasaragod and othersRelied on¶23
Kasaragod District Bus Owners Association v. Regional Transport Authority, Kasaragod and others [2015 (1) KHC 156]
Subhash Chandra and others v. State of U.P. and othersExplained¶34
Subhash Chandra and others v. State of U.P. and others (1980) 2 SCC 324 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
P.L.JOHNSON
THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
THE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY THRISSUR
THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
ADDL.R5.GOPINATHAN
ANTONY DOMINIC
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
