Writ petition challenging State Transport Authority's 10-year age limit for limited stop ordinary services. Court dismissed petition by adopting directions from previous judgment requiring reconsideration without specific reasons.
Petition disposed of in terms of directions in W.P.(C).No.24680/2017 requiring reconsideration of age limits.
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 MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
TUESDAY ,THE 04TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940
WP(C).No. 14745 of 2018
PETITIONER:
C.D.CHACKO @ SUNNY AGED 69 YEARS S/O DEVASSIA, 6/6 CHITTILAPPILLY HOUSE, AYYANTHOLE, G.P.KADAVARAM ROAD, P.O.PULLAZHI, THRISSUR DISTRICT
BY ADVS. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H.
RESPONDENTS:
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,THRISSUR- 680 001
SRI. BIMAL K.NATH, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 14745 of 2018
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner who is the stage carriage operator
on the route Ottappalam – Thrissur in respect of a limited stop ordinary service, bearing registration No.KL-08-AN-8907, covered by Ext.P1 permit, which is valid upto 05/05/2019, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:
i)Issue a writ of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ or order or direction calling for the records relating to Ext.P3 and to quash
the same in so far as it fixes the life span of
limited stop ordinary service as 10 years.
ii)To declare that Ext.P3 is not valid so far as it fixes the life span of the services operated as limited stop ordinary services as 10 years only in respect of stage carriages.
carriage bearing registration No.KL-08/AN-8907 is a 2008 model vehicle.
3
WP(C).No. 14745 of 2018
for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file. The learned Government Pleader took notice for
the respondents. This court granted an interim order,
directing the 5th respondent to issue temporary permit with a duration of 2 months. The said interim order, which was extended from time to time, was extended by one month on 29/10/2018.
and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
against the decision of the State Transport Authority dated 14.06.2017, insofar as it relates to fixation
of age limit for stage carriages in applying and granting fresh stage carriage permits was the issue raised in W.P.(C)No.24680 of 2017 and connected cases. By judgment dated 15.10.2018, those writ
petitions are disposed of by setting aside the decision of the State Transport Authority dated 14.06.2017 and the said authority is directed to
WP(C).No. 14745 of 2018
4
reconsider the matter. Paragraphs 17 to 25 and the
last paragraph of the said judgment read thus:
“17. Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, conclusion is irresistible that the decision of the State Transport Authority dated 14.6.2017 (Ext.P8 in W.P. (C)No.24680/2017) fixing age limit for stage carriages in applying and granting fresh regular stage carriage permits cannot be sustained in law, as the same is one issued in fragrant violation of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, no reasons whatsoever have been stated in the said decision, in support of fixation of age limits for stage carriages.
WP(C).No. 14745 of 2018
5
pollution, protection of road conditions, regulation and control of transport vehicles including provision for grant of permits, preventing unhealthy competitions between the transporters amongst several other issues relating to motor vehicle and transports. It is therefore clear from a perusal of the provisions of the Act that the extent of the right to operate stage carriages under the Act is subservient and subject to the right, amongst others, to safe and secure transport of the travelling passengers and the right to pollution free environment and good road conditions of the public at large. [Paragraph 77: Shaheed Khan and others v. State of M.P. and others (2013 (4) MPLJ 439) ].
WP(C).No. 14745 of 2018
6
Transport Authority was not justified in fixing different age limits for ordinary stage carriages, city/town stage carriages and limited stop ordinary services, etc.
WP(C).No. 14745 of 2018
7
right to operate stage carriages unfettered by any conditions or restrictions in total disregard to the security, safety and convenience of the passengers and the public at large. Their fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution is inferior and subordinate and has to give way to the paramount consideration of the public safety, security and convenience of the passengers and other relevant considerations under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules made thereunder.
WP(C).No. 14745 of 2018
8
months' duration to operate the service. Based on the orders passed by the State Transport Authority, the respective Regional Transport Authorities shall pass revised orders on the application preferred by the petitioners for grant of regular permit, if situation warrants.
It is also ordered that till a fresh decision is taken by the State Transport Authority, based on the direction contained in this judgment, the issuance of regular permit for conducting stage carriage operation, with stage carriages above the age limit specified in the decision of the State Transport Authority dated 14.6.2017, shall be deferred by all the Regional Transport Authorities in the State.”
(C)No.24680 of 2017 and connected cases dated 15.10.2018, this writ petition is disposed of in
terms of the directions in that judgment.
The directions contained in paragraphs 24 and 25 and also the last paragraph of the judgment in W.P. (C)No.24680 of 2017 shall govern the case of the petitioner, as well.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DK
WP(C).No. 14745 of 2018
9
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
| EXHIBIT P1 | TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR STAGE CARRIAGE PERMIT ISSUED BY THE RTA, THRISSUR IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER RELATING TO VEHICLE NO.KL-08 AN-8907 WHICH IS VALID UPTO 05-05-2019 |
|---|---|
| EXHIBITP2 | TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF BUS NO.KL-08 AN 8907 |
| EXHIBITP3 | TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN DEPARTMENT ITEM NO.2 IN MEETING HELD ON 14-06-2017 |
| EXHIBITP4 | TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT MADE IN WPC NO.33980/2015 DATED 15-12-2016 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT |
| EXHIBIT P5 | TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 31-05-2016 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT LIMITING THE STATE CARRIAGE BUSES IN PALAKKAD DISTRICT TO 10 YEARS |
| EXHIBITP6 | TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TAKEN IN DEPARTMENT ITEM NO.1 OF THE MEETING HELD ON 18-11-2015 |
| EXHIBITP7 | TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(MS) NO.45/2015/TRAN DATED 20-08-2015 |
| EXHIBTP8 | TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT MADE IN WPC NO.21172/2016 DATED 23-11-2016 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT |
| EXHIBIT P9 | TRUE COPY OF THE ONE SUCH INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.41586/2017 DATED 21-12-2017 |
| RESPONDENT'S EXH | IBITS: NIL |
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
DK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the age limit fixation for stage carriages in State Transport Authority decision was valid in light of the Motor Vehicles Act and natural justice principles.
How the fundamental right to trade under Article 19(1)(g) balances against public safety and traffic regulation mandates of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Subhash Chandra v. State of U.P.Followed¶50
Subhash Chandra v. State of U.P., (1980) 2 SCC 324 · Who else cites this
Shaheed Khan and others v. State of M.P.Referred¶53
Shaheed Khan and others v. State of M.P. and others, 2013 (4) MPLJ 439
K.M.Ismeth Ummer v. Regional Transport AuthorityExplained¶53
K.M.Ismeth Ummer v. Regional Transport Authority and anr., (2011) 15 SCC 288 · Who else cites this
M.C.Mehta v. Union of IndiaFollowed¶59
M.C.Mehta v. Union of India, (1997) 8 SCC 770 · Who else cites this
C.D.Chacko @ Sunny
Government of Kerala
State Transport Authority (Kerala)
The Transport Commissioner
Regional Transport Authority Thrissur
Regional Transport Authority Palakkad
Anil K.Narendran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
