Disposed

Sreekumar S v. the Regional Transport Authority

Kerala HC13 Dec 2018WP(C)/36179/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing that the provisions and directions of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.24680 of 2017 dated 15.10.2018 shall govern the petitioner's case regarding stage carriage permits and age limits.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sreekumar S Vs the Regional Transport Authority — Pension and Retirement Benefits | 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 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No.36179 of 2017

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SREEKUMAR S., S/O. SIVARAMAN PILLAI, AGED 42 YEARS,SABARICKAL PADEETTATHIL, KATTACHIRA,PALLICKAL P.O., PIN - 691 566.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY - 688 001.

¶11

2 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001.

¶12

3 THE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAZHUTHACADU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695014.

¶13

4 THE SECRETARY, THE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KERALA, VAZHUTHACADU P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.

¶14

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIMAL.K.NATH, (SR.GP)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WPC 36179 OF 2017 2

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The petitioner, who is the registered owner of a stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-18/B-695 (which is a 2005 model vehicle), who has been granted a regular permit vide Ext.P1 proceeding dated 30.03.2017 of the Regional Transport Authority, Alappuzha, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Exts.P6 and P7 and a declaration that Ext.P7 decision taken by the 3^rd respondent is not in accordance with the directions of the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C)No.24607 of 2016. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 2^nd respondent to issue temporary permit till the regular permit granted as per Ext.P1 is issued in respect of his vehicle bearing registration No.KL-18/B-695, on the route CharummoodMavelikkara.

¶19

On 10.11.2017, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file. The learned Government Pleader took notice for the respondents and sought time to file counter affidavit. This Court granted an interim order to consider the application submitted by the petitioner seeking

¶20

WPC 36179 OF 2017 3

¶21

temporary permit, pursuant to the lapse of the previous temporary permit on 31.10.2017, and grant temporary permit to the petitioner, if there is no other legal impediments standing in the way, untrammelled by the stipulations contained in Ext.P7.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶23

learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶24

The challenge made in this writ petition 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 reconsider the matter. Paragraphs 17 to 25 and the last paragraph of the said judgment read thus:

¶25

“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

¶26

WPC 36179 OF 2017 4

¶27

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.

¶28

In Subhash Chandra v. State of U.P. [(1980) 2 SCC 324) , the Apex Court in the context of the provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 held that the provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act are geared to public safety and not private profit and casts a solemn duty upon the authorities to protect Indian lives moving in buses, walking on roads, or even standing on margins. This aspect is exemplified on a bare perusal of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, which makes it luminously clear that the Act has been enacted not for granting benefit to stage carriage operators or facilitate or guarantee profit and benefits to transport operators, but the object of regulating the entire field of motor vehicles, transport, traffic, road safety, compensation to victims of motor accidents, security, comfort and protection of passengers, public safety, prevention of 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

¶29

¶30

WPC 36179 OF 2017

¶31

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

¶32

(4) MPLJ 439) ].

¶33

In K.M.Ismeth Ummer v. Regional Transport Authority and anr. [(2011) 15 SCC 288] , the Apex Court, in the context of Section 72(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, held that the expression ' specified description ' is very wide and, therefore, the authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act are perfectly justified in placing restrictions for grant of the permit in public interest, which would include fixing the age of the vehicle also.

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. (C)No.24680/2017 would contend that when the direction contained in Ext.P6 judgment of this Court dated 15.12.2016 in W.P.(C)No.33980/2015 and connected cases, while ordering reconsideration of the matter by the State Transport Authority, was only for fixation of maximum age of the vehicle to be used for conducting ordinary stage carriage services in the State, the 4^th respondent State Transport Authority was not justified in fixing different age limits for ordinary stage carriages, city/town stage carriages and limited stop ordinary services, etc.

¶35

As held by the Apex Court in K.M.Ismeth Ummer's case (supra) , the authorities under the Motor

¶36

¶37

WPC 36179 OF 2017

¶38

Vehicles Act have the authority in placing restrictions for the grant of permit, in public interest, including fixation of the age of the vehicle. Therefore, any decision taken by the State Transport Authority in fixing different age limits for different types of stage carriage is legally permissible.

¶39

In M.C.Mehta v. Union of India [(1997)8 SCC 770) , a Three Bench Judge of the Apex Court held that the existing provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 alone are sufficient to clothe the members of the Police force and the transport authorities with ample powers to control and regulate the traffic in appropriate manner, so that no vehicle being used in a public place, causes any danger to the public in any form. The requirement of maintaining the motor vehicle in the manner prescribed and its use if roadworthy in a manner, which does not endanger the public, has to be ensured by the authorities and this is the aim of the provisions enacted in the Motor Vehicles Act.

¶40

Though the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions, who are stage carriage operators, have a fundamental right to trade and commerce, guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, the said right cannot be extended or stretched to encompass a fundamental 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

¶41

¶42

WPC 36179 OF 2017

¶43

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.

¶44

In the result, these writ petitions are disposed of by setting aside the decision of the State Transport Authority dated 14.6.2017 (Ext.P8 in W.P. (C)No.24680/2017), and the said Authority is directed to reconsider the matter, with notice to the affected parties, including the stage carriage operators in the State, and take an appropriate decision regarding fixation of the age limits for stage carriages in applying and granting fresh regular stage carriage permits, taking note of the provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules made thereunder and also the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra. 25. A decision in this regard shall be taken, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Till such orders are passed, status quo as on this date in respect of the permits/temporary permits, if any, issued to the petitioners shall be continued, if found necessary by issuing temporary permit of two 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

WPC 36179 OF 2017

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.”

¶49

In view of the judgment of this Court in W.P. (C)No.24680 of 2017 and connected cases dated 15.10.2018, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the directions contained 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.

¶50

Sd/- ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

WPC 36179 OF 2017

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶56

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENT DATED S01.	DECISION OF THE 1ST 30.3.2017 IN ITEM NO.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMITTED BY THE 16.6.2017.	REPRESENTATION PETITIONER DATED
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE CONFERENCE ISSUED	NOTICE FOR TIMING BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE FROM 01.7.2017 TO	PERMIT ISSUED VALID 29.8.2017.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE FROM 30.8.2017 TO	TEMPORARY PERMIT VALID 31.10.2017.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE NO.C2/75917/2017	ORDER VIDE DATED 31.10.2017.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSPORT AUTHORI MEETING HELD ON 1	DECISION OF THE STATE TY, KERALA AT ITS 4.6.2017.

¶57

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL

¶58

TRUE COPY

¶59

P.A. TO JUDGE

Sreekumar S v. the Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sreekumar S v. the Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Asa K.S. Vs the Manager, the Ernakulam District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Hameed Kutty M.S Vs the Keecheri Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. NO.668

Babu N.K Vs the Secretary, the Co-Operative Arbitration Court (Northern)

Dr.Meera Devi.S Vs Govt. of Kerala

Muhammed Riswan K.A. Vs Joint Regional Transport Officer

Noushad P.a., Vs Joint Regional Transport Officer