Dismissed

P.K.Santhosh v. Regional Transport Authority

Kerala HC7 Jan 2019WP(C)/363/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ petition seeking a certiorari to quash an order rejecting a request to interchange bus timings. The Court held that since the order was revisable under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the writ was not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as not maintainable; statutory remedy under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act directed.

P.K.Santhosh Vs Regional Transport Authority — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

MONDAY,THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 17TH POUSHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 363 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

P.K.SANTHOSH AGED 46 YEARS S/O KRISHNAN, M/S. GREEN LINE EXPRESS, NO.3, T.M.COMPLEX, CHANDRANAGAR BY-PASS, CHANDRANAGAR P O, PALAKKAD-678 007.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SMT.K.S.SMITHA SRI.PRAVEEN.H. SRI.V.R.SANJEEV KUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY PALAKKAD-678 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶11

2 THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD-678 001.

¶12

3 THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR, 680 001.

¶13

4 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE (TRAFFIC) TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD-678 001.

¶14

5 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE GURUVAYOOR POLICE STATION, GURUVAYOOR-680 101. SRI K.P.HARISH,SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

W.P.(C)No.363 of 2019

¶17

:-2-:

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

The petitioner, who is a stage carriage

¶20

operator conducting stage carriage operations with stage carriage bearing Registration Nos.KL-09/AF299, KL-09/AG-6499, KL-09/AG-7399 and KL-09/AG9199, on the route Palakkad and Guruvayur via Ottappalam and Pattambi, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P10 proceedings dated 15.11.2018 of the 1^st respondent Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority whereby the request made by the petitioner for interchange of timings of the buses mentioned in Exts.P1, P3, P5 and P7 regular permits stands rejected. The petitioner has also sought for other consequential reliefs.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶22

and also the learned Senior Government Pleader

¶23

W.P.(C)No.363 of 2019

¶24

:-3-:

¶25

appearing for the respondents.

¶26

The learned Senior Government Pleader would

¶27

point out that Ext.P10 order passed by the 1^st respondent Regional Transport Authority is revisable under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the State Transport Appellate

¶28

Tribunal.

¶29

The sole issue that arises for

¶30

consideration in this writ petition is as to

¶31

whether any interference is warranted on Ext.P10 proceedings dated 15.11.2018 of the 1^st respondent

¶32

Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority, in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶33

The fact that Ext.P10 proceedings dated 15.11.2018 of the 1^st respondent Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority is revisable under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is not

¶34

W.P.(C)No.363 of 2019

¶35

:-4-:

¶36

in dispute. If the petitioner is feeling aggrieved by Ext.P10 proceedings, it is for him to invoke the statutory remedy available under Section 90 of the Act.

¶37

In Commissioner of Income Tax V. Chhabil Das

¶38

Agarwal [(2014) 1 SCC 603] the Apex Court

¶39

reiterated that, non-entertainment of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when an efficacious alternative remedy is available is a rule of self-imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. Undoubtedly, it is within the discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, despite the existence of alternative remedy. However, High Court must not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy

¶40

available to the petitioner and he has approached the High Court without availing the same, unless he

¶41

W.P.(C)No.363 of 2019

¶42

:-5-:

¶43

has made out an exceptional case warranting such interference or there exists sufficient ground to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226.

¶44

In the above circumstances, this writ petition filed on 4.1.2019 is dismissed as not maintainable, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge Ext.P10 proceedings dated 15.11.2018 of the 1^st respondent Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority, before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal by invoking the statutory remedy available under Section 90 of the Act.

¶45

All legal and factual contentions raised by the petitioner are left open to be raised before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal at appropriate stage.

Sd/-

ANIL K.NARENDRAN

JUDGE

ami/7.1.19

W.P.(C)No.363 of 2019

¶51

:-6-:

¶52

APPENDIX

¶53

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶54

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT OF BUS NO.KL09/AF-299 WHICH IS VALID UPTO 1.5.2018. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT SETTLING THE TIMINGS OF EXHIBIT P1 PERMIT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT OF BUS NO.KL09/AG-6499 WHICH IS VALID UPTO 9.6.2022. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT SETTLING THE TIMINGS OF EXHIBIT P3 PERMIT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT OF BUS NO.KL09/AG-9199 WHICH IS VALID UPTO 14.9.2020. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 18.2.2005 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT SETTLING THE TIMINGS OF EXHIBIT P5 PERMIT. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT OF BUS NO.KL09/AG-7399 WHICH IS VALID UPTO 11.1.2020. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT SETTLING THE TIMINGS OF EXHIBIT P7 PERMIT. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT MADE IN WPC NO.3163/2018 DATED 27.2.2018. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RTA, PALAKKAD TAKEN IN ITEM NO.129 OF THE MEETING HELD ON 15.11.2018.

P.K.Santhosh v. Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.K.Santhosh v. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sabu Joy Vs the Joint Regional Transport Officer

Mr. Abdul Salam, Vs the Keala State Beeverages Corporation Ltd.

Suhada Beegum A.K. Vs Anoop Varkey

K.J.Jijo Vs the Secretary

Rajan M.G. Vs the Managing Director

A.Veluswamy Vs Government of Kerala