Disposed

Reny Peter v. the Regional Transport Authority

Kerala HC12 Nov 2018WP(C)/35581/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition by directing the Regional Transport Authority to ensure receipt of enquiry reports from sister authorities within three weeks, place the permit renewal application before the Authority, and pass orders within six weeks adhering to existing judgments.

What did the court decide?

Directing the R.T.A. to receive enquiry reports within 3 weeks, consider the application in a meeting, and pass orders within 6 weeks.

Reny Peter Vs the Regional Transport Authority — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 35581 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

RENY PETER, S/O.PETER, PULINIKUMKALAYIL HOUSE, KOTHANELLOOR.P.O., KOTTAYAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM-682 030.

¶11

SRI P.SANTHOSH KUMAR, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

¶14

W.P.(C) No.35581/2018

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

The petitioner is a stage carriage operator holding two regular permits to conduct 'opposite service' with alternate start and halt on an inter-regional route Kottayam-Panathur, presently operated as 'Limited Stop Ordinary Service' in respect of stage carriages bearing registration numbers KL-67/1800 and KL-36/C-7400 has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1 proceedings dated 22.12.2015 of the respondent Regional Transport Authority to the extent it directs the Secretary of that Authority to seek concurrence of the sister Regional Transport Authorities for renewal of those permits. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus, commanding the respondent to consider the application for renewal of regular permits issued to the petitioner's stage carriages bearing registration numbers KL-67/1800 and KL-36/C7400 on the route Kottayam-Panathur, which was adjourned vide Ext.P1 proceedings, and pass final orders on merits, in the light of the law laid down in Ext.P2 judgment of this Court dated 17.03.2017 in W.P. (C)No.1786/2017 and Ext.P3 judgment of the Division Bench dated 20.08.2018 in W.A.No.1098/2018 and connected cases.

¶17

On 01.11.2018, this writ petition came up for admission

¶18

¶19

W.P.(C) No.35581/2018

¶20

and the learned Senior Government Pleader sought time to get instructionS.

¶21

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

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that,

¶23

the application made by the petitioner before the respondent Regional Transport Authority for renewal of his stage carriage permit in respect of stage carriages bearing registration numbers KL-67/1800 and KL-36/C7400 was one for conversion of the Limited Stop Ordinary Services instead of Super Fast Express Services and also for renewal of permit for a further period of 5 years from 31.07.2013. By Ext.P1 proceedings dated 22.12.2015, though the application for conversion of services as Limited Stop Ordinary Service was granted, the application for renewal of those permits for a further period of 5 years stands adjourned with a direction to the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority to seek concurrence of the sister Regional Transport Authorities.

¶24

5 . Relying on Ext.P2 judgment of this Court dated 17.03.2017 in W.P.(C)No.1786/2017, the petitioner would contend that no concurrence of the sister Regional Transport Authorities is required

¶25

¶26

W.P.(C) No.35581/2018

¶27

for renewal of permit under Section 81 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The petitioner would also point out that the application for renewal of permit was not taken up for consideration by the respondent on account of the embargo placed on the renewal of permits on routes exceeding 140 kms, vide clause(4) of the Kerala Gazette notification dated 23.03.2017. By Ext.P4, common judgment dated 20.08.2018 in W.A.No.1098/2018 and connected cases, the Division Bench of this Court quashed clause (4) of the Kerala Gazette notification dated 25.03.2017 that made the maximum distance (140 kms) in Rule 2(oa) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 applicable to saved permits. According to the petitioner, in view of the law laid down in Exts.P2 and P3 judgments, the petitioner is entitled for consideration of her application for renewal of Ext.P1 regular permit, without concurrence from the sister Regional Transport Authorities and untramelled by clause (4) of the Kerala Gazette notification dated 25.03.2017.

¶28

The learned Special Government Pleader on instructions would submit that, the request made by the petitioner for renewal of the aforesaid stage carriage permits is now pending

¶29

¶30

W.P.(C) No.35581/2018

¶31

consideration for want of enquiry report by the Field officers of the sister Regional Transport Authorities. Once the same is received, it shall be placed in the next meeting of the respondent Regional Transport Authority.

¶32

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

¶33

(i) Within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, the Secretary of the respondent Regional Transport Authority shall ensure that the enquiry report of the Field Officers of the sister regional Transport Authorities on the application made by the petitioner for renewal of Ext.P1 regular permit are received. Thereafter, the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority shall place the application made by the petitioner for renewal referred to in Ext.P1 proceedings dated 22.12.2015 before the respondent Regional Transport Authority and the said Authority shall consider the same in its next meeting and pass appropriate orders thereon, strictly in accordance with law, taking note of the law laid down by this Court in Exts.P2 and P3 judgments, with notice to the petitioner and after

¶34

¶35

W.P.(C) No.35581/2018

¶36

affording her an opportunity of being heard.

¶37

(ii) The entire exercise in this regard shall be completed by the respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six weeks thereafter.

¶38

Sd/- ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶39

avs

¶40

¶41

W.P.(C) No.35581/2018

¶42

APPENDIX

¶43

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶44