Allowed

Mohammed Ali, v. the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Kerala HC8 Nov 2018WP(C)/34281/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Kerala High Court directed the Regional Transport Authority to consider a request for a clearance certificate without insisting on a permit-less certificate. The court affirmed that the RTA lacks statutory authority to demand such a certificate, holding that the demand is ultra vires.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent to consider the petitioner's request for clearance certificate without insisting for permit less certificate and pass orders within one month.

Mohammed Ali, Vs the Secretary… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY ,THE 08TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1940 WP(C).No. 34281 of 2018

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

MOHAMMED ALI, CHUNDAYIL HOUSE, MUDAVANTHERI, TUNERI PO, VADAKARA. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON

¶7

RESPONDENT:

¶8

THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KANNUR- 670 001.

¶9

SRI K.P. HARISH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶10

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

W.P.(C) No.34281/2018

¶12

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

The petitioner, who is the holder of Exhibit-P1 regular permit on the route Mattannur-Kannur-Kozhikode as Limited Stop Ordinary Service, which was valid till 14.10.2018, in respect of a stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-18 S 3535, has filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kannur to consider Exhibit-P3 request for clearance certificate in relation to the aforesaid stage carriage, without insisting for permit less certificate, to be obtained by him while applying for renewal of permit. The learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance upon Exhibit-P4 judgment of this Court dated 15.02.2017 in W.P.(C).No.1837 of 2017.

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

¶16

Paragraph 3 of the judgment of this Court dated 15.02.2017 in W.P.(C) No.1837 of 2017 reads thus:

¶17

“3. The learned Government Pleader pointed out that the permitless certificate is insisted since the application for renewal of the permit in respect of the vehicle is pending. In other words, the stand of the respondent is that the petitioner is not entitled to transfer the vehicle during the pendency of the application for renewal of the permit. No provision in the Motor Vehicles Act

¶18

W.P.(C) No.34281/2018

¶19

¶20

empowering the Registering Authority to insist a permit-less certificate of the vehicle from the Regional Transport Authority concerned for effecting transfer in respect of a vehicle is brought to the notice of this Court. Likewise, no provision interdicting the sale of the vehicle during the pendency of an application for renewal of the permit issued in respect of the same is also brought to the notice of this Court. The question whether the petitioner is entitled to pursue the application for renewal without there being a vehicle is a matter for the Regional Transport Authority concerned to consider at the relevant point of time. So long as there is no legal impediment for the petitioner to sell his vehicle, the impugned order, to the extent it directs the petitioner to produce the permit-less certificate, is unsustainable. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is allowed and the interim order passed by this Court on 20.01.2017 directing consideration of Exts.P2 and P2(a) applications without insisting the permit-less certificate is made absolute.”

¶21

The law laid down by this Court in the judgment dated 15.12.2017 in W.P.(C)No.1837 of 2017 is affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 23.03.2017 in W.A.No.568 of 2017 by holding that, the Regional Transport Officer cannot insist upon getting a permit-less certificate, which is not so provided in the Motor Vehicles Act and which does not sub-serve the purpose of the said Act. In the absence of authority to demand such a certificate, the demand would clearly be unreasonable and ultra vires. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the said judgment read thus;

¶22

W.P.(C) No.34281/2018

¶23

¶24

“2. It is submitted on behalf of the Regional Transport Officer in appeal that if the view as taken by the learned Single Judge is allowed to stand, then large number of persons may misuse the same. They would have applied for renewal of permits or for grant of permits during pendency of which we may sell the vehicle. This should not be permitted. He further points out that if the vehicle is transferred during the pendency of application or renewal thereof, those permits or renewal applications ought not be processed.

¶25

We should not concern ourselves with those aspects for the simple reason that if the position is that upon transfer of a vehicle, the application for renewal thereof becomes infructuous. Then law would take its own course. But the Regional Transport Officer cannot insist upon getting a permit-less certificate, which is not so provided in the Act and which does not sub-serve the purpose of the Act. In the absence of authority to demand such a certificate, the demand would clearly be unreasonable and ultra vires. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge”.

¶26

In such circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the

¶27

following directions;

¶28

(i) If Exhibit-P3 request made by the petitioner is received and pending consideration, the respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, strictly in accordance with law, taking note of the law laid down by this Court in the judgment dated 15.12.2017 in W.P.(C) No.1837 of 2017, which is affirmed by the

¶29

W.P.(C) No.34281/2018

¶30

¶31

Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.568 of 2017.

¶32

(ii) Necessary orders in this regard shall be passed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment, with notice to the petitioner.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

ANIL K. NARENDRAN

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

csl

¶37

W.P.(C) No.34281/2018

¶38

¶39

APPENDIX

¶40

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶41

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RENEWAL APPLICATION DATED 18.09.2018. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST FOR CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE DATED 05.10.2018. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO.1837/2017 DATED 15.02.2017.

csl

//True copy//

P.S. To Judge

Mohammed Ali, v. the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Ali, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yamuna Balaram Vs State Transport Authority

Liya Nasrin M Vs Dr. Govindababu

Mohammed Sahir Vs the Authorized Officer

Iverkala Service Co-Operative Bank LTD.NO.193 Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Nishad Punnayur Sekharan Vs State of Kerala

M.v.Rajendran Vs Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies