Reesh.C Vs the Secretary

The petitioner is the holder of Ext.P1 regular permit in
respect of stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-55/A-630 on
the route Tanur – Kozhikode, which is valid upto 22.09.2010.
The said vehicle is a 2006 model vehicle. According to the
petitioner, now he has acquired a 2013 model vehicle, bearing
registration No.KL-58/K-6525 obtained from one Sadanandan
and made an application for renewal of lease agreement, by
submitting Ext.P3 request dated 01.02.2019. Now the petitioner
is before this Court in this writ petition seeking a writ of
mandamus commanding the respondent to consider and dispose
of Ext.P3 request submitted by the petitioner for granting
permission to renew the lease agreement in respect of vehicle
bearing registration No.KL-58/K-6525 operating on the route
Tanur – Kozhikode as per Ext.P1 regular permit.

¶17

2. On 12.03.2019, when this writ petition came up for
admission, the learned Senior Government Pleader was directed
to get instructions.

¶18

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶19

WP(C).No. 7294 of 2019

¶20

¶21

learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the
respondent.

¶22

4.The learned Government Pleader would submit that
the respondent shall consider and pass orders onExt.P3
application for renewal of the lease agreement within a time
limit to be fxed by this Court.i

¶23

5. In Usha Nanthini M. V. Secretary, Regional
Transport Authority, Palakkad & another [2018 (2) KHC
89] this Court held that, in view of the law laid down by the
Division Bench in Regional Transport Authority and another
v. Shaju [ILR 2017 (3) Kerala 720], no request made by a
permit holder for replacement of vehicle can be declined merely
for the reason that the incoming vehicle is an older model,
subject, of course, to the older model vehicle being certified as
roadworthy. This Court, after referring to the decision of the
Apex Court in M.C. Metha v Union of India [(1997) 8 SCC
770],wherein it was held that the requirement of maintaining
the motor vehicles in the manner prescribed and its use if
roadworthy in a manner which does not endanger public, has to

¶24

WP(C).No. 7294 of 2019

¶25

¶26

be ensured by the authorities and this is the aim of the
provisions enacted in the Motor Vehicles Act; and also the
provisions under Section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act, (which
deals with certification of fitness of transport vehicles) and Rule
62 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, (which deals with
validity of certificate of fitness)held that, a vehicle which no
longer complies with all the requirements of the Motor Vehicles
Act and the Rules made thereunder cannot be permitted to be
driven or plied on the road. Therefore, road worthiness and
viability of the incoming vehicle shall be the consideration in an
application for replacement, rather than the model of the
incoming vehicle.

¶27

6. In Jijith v. State of Kerala and others [2019 (1)

¶28

KHC 463], this Court held that a transport vehicle fitted with
unauthorised lights cannot be treated as a vehicle which
complies with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and
the Rules made thereunder, for the purpose of grant of
certificate of fitness. The paintwork of every transport vehicle
shall be maintained in a clean and sound condition, as

¶29

WP(C).No. 7294 of 2019

¶30

¶31

contemplated by Rule 264 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules,
1989. While approving the matter intended to be exhibited on
the vehicle, in exercise of the powers under sub-rule (2) of Rule
191 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, the State or the
Regional Transport Authority shall ensure that it does not cause
distractionto the drivers of other vehicles and also cyclists and
pedestrians on public road. No approval under sub-rule (2) of
Rule 191, shall be granted for exhibition of any advertisements,

¶32

writings, fgures, graphics, etc.ion the body of a transport
vehicle, at places intended for exhibiting the name and address
of the operator as per clause (g) of Section 84 of the Motor
Vehicles Act; the 'emergency information panel' as per Rule 134
of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules for goods carriages used for
transporting any dangerous or hazardous goods; the particulars
enumerated in clauses (a) to (g) of Rule 93 of the Kerala Motor
Vehicles Rules; the name of the institution exhibited in
educational institution bus and private service vehicle as per
Rule 291 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules; etc. In the case of a
stage carriage in respect of which uniform colour scheme has

¶33

WP(C).No. 7294 of 2019

¶34

¶35

been implemented under Rule 264 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles
Rules, vide the decision of the State Transport Authority dated
04.01.2018, no approval under sub-rule (2) of Rule 191, shall be
granted for exhibition of any advertisements, writings, figures,
graphics, etc., over the three equally spaced white lines painted
below the height of the wheel arch. In the said decision, this
Court held further that exhibition of writings or fgures with thei
sole object to invite public attention and to promote the contract
carriage or stage carriage service should not be permitted by
levying fee under Rule 191 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules.

¶36

7. In Jijith's case supra this Court held further that, in
view of the provisions under Rule 100 of the Central Motor
Vehicles Rules, tampering with the percentage of visual
transmission of light of the safety glass of the windscreen, rear
window and side windows of a motor vehicle, either by pasting
any material upon the safety glass or by fxing isliding 'cloth
curtains', etc. are legally impermissible. In view of the
provisions under Rule 50 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules,
the registration mark on the right and left side of every

¶37

WP(C).No. 7294 of 2019

¶38

¶39

transport vehicle has to be painted on the bodyand it has to be
displayed as per Rule 50 read with Rule 51, at the specified
place, in the manner specified in those rules.

¶40

8.InKerala Bus Transport Association v.
Government of Kerala (2018 (4) KLT 947), this Court held
that the provisions under the Kerala Motor Vehicles (2nd
Amendment) Rules, 2016, are intended to ensure safe and
convenient public transport facility to the passengers by
reducing the chances of untoward incidents and as such, the
said provisions are in the interest of the public at large. By the
said judgment, this Court has directed that, the Police and the
Transport authorities shall take necessary steps to ensure that
all stage carriages, including stage carriages operating as town
and city services are ftted with door shuttersi as mandated by
sub-rule (2) of Rule 280 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules and
that, appropriate proceedings shall be initiated against the
owners/permit holders and also the employees of the stage
carriages plying with door shutters either removed or tied to bus
body and that, proceedings shall also be initiated against the

¶41

WP(C).No. 7294 of 2019

¶42

¶43

employees for opening or closing door shutters while the stage
carriage is in motion.

¶44

9.In view of the law laid down by this Court in the
decisions referred to supra, while considering Ext.P3 application
for renewal of lease agreement, the respondent shall ensure that
the vehicle in question complies with the provisions of the Motor
Vehicles Act and the Rules made thereunder, i.e., the vehicle is
not fitted with any unauthorised lights; that it is painted in the
uniform colour scheme, if any, specified under Rule 264 of the
Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules; that the safety glasses of the wind
screen, rear window and side windows are maintained as per the
mandate of Rule 100 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules,
without tampering the percentage of visual transmission of light,
as specified in the said Rules; that the registration mark is
displayed as per Rule 50 of the Central Motor vehicles Rules,
read with Rule 51, at the specified places, in the manner
specified in those Rules; that it is fitted with door shutters as
mandated by sub-rule (2) of Rule 280 of the Kerala Motor
Vehicles Rules; etc.

¶45

WP(C).No. 7294 of 2019

¶46

¶47

10.In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of
by directing the respondent to consider and pass orders on
Ext.P3 application made by the petitioner for renewal of lease
agreement of stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-58/K-
6525 after taking note of the law laid down in the decisions
referred to supra.

¶48

A decision in this regard shall be taken, as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date
of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, with notice to the
petitioner and after affording him an opportunity of being heard.

¶49

 Sd/-

¶50

ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶51

 JUDGE

¶52

DK

¶53

WP(C).No. 7294 of 2019

¶54

¶55

APPENDIX

¶56

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶57

EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT NO.P.ST.10/851/2000 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE VEHICLE REPLACEMENT IN LEASE AGREEMENT VIDE ENDT.NO.10/69415/2018 DATED 18.05.2018 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 01.02.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT.

¶58

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

¶59

//TRUE COPY//

¶60

PA TO JUDGE

¶61

DK

Reesh.C v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reesh.C v. the Secretary

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

Prince Vs State of Kerala

Saritha.C.v Vs a.Shajahan IAS

Rajan N.V Vs Panchayath Secretary

Nitta Gelatin India Limited, Vs Kadukutty Grama Panchayat

Abdul Kalam Harif.C.K Vs the Regional Transport Officer

P.Muhammed Basheer Vs the Kerala State Election Commission