Dismissed

Chinnumol, v. Joint Regional Transport Officer

Kerala HC23 Nov 2020RP/160/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This review petition challenged the original judgment on contract carriage permits which required parking at specific locations. The single-judge bench held that challenging this stipulation would cause chaos and was a policy matter better addressed by the government. The review was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The review petition is dismissed with liberty to move the Government for policy changes regarding halting places.

Chinnumol, Vs Joint Regional Transport Officer — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶5

RP.No.160 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 31334/2018

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.10.2019 IN WP(C) 31334/2018(N) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONERS (PETITIONERS IN THE WRIT PETITION):

¶8

1 CHINNUMOL, AGED 45 YEARS, D/O. GEORGEKUTTY SEBASTIAN, PLACKAL HOUSE, PONJASSERY-683 547.

¶9

2 RAHEEM, S/O. ABDUL RAHIMAN, 5/554, KIDANGASSERY HOUSE, KUTHIRAPARAMBU, VAZHAKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

3 NASEEMA, D/O. MUHAMMED NASSER, KARUPPAMVEETTIL HOUSE, ALLAPRA-683 556, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶11

4 ASHARAF, 10/242-U, EERACKAL HOUSE, KANDANTHARA, ALLAPRA-683 556, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶12

5 AJMAL, S/O. ALIYAR, KOKKADAN HOUSE, KANDANTHARA,

¶13

ALLAPRA-683 556, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶14

6 RASHEED, S/O. SULAIMAN, NEDIYAN HOUSE, MUDICKAL-683 547, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶15

7 SHAMSUDHEEN, S/O. KHADER, VADAKKEKUDY HOUSE, PALLIPRAM, MUDICKAL-683 547, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶16

8 SHAMEER, S/O. PAREEKUNJU, ALANGAYI HOUSE, KANDANTHARA, ALLAPRA, VENGOLA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶17

9 NAJEEB V B, S/O. SULAIMAN V.V, VELLAKUDY, ALLAPRA-683 556, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶18

10 NASSARUDEEN, S/O. ABDUL RAHIMAN, NELLIKKAL HOUSE, PALLIPRAM, VAZHAKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶19

11 LIYAKHATH ALEEKAN METHAR, S/O. ABDUL RAHIMAN, 3/219, NELLICKAL HOUSE, VAZHAKULAM, MUDICKAL P. O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶20

12 MUHAMMED KASIM T.I, D/O NAFEESA, THACHETH, VENGOLA, ARAKAPPADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶21

RP.No.160/2020 IN WP(C)No.31334/2018

¶22

-2-

¶23

13 LATHEEF, S/O. HAMZA, 4/128, CHERUVALLYKUDY, KANJIRAKKAD, PERUMBAVOOR.

¶24

14 ALIKUNJU, S/O. SAIDU MUHAMMED, 11/103, VANIYAKKATTU HOUSE, NEDUMTHODU, VENGOLA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶25

15 SHYLA, D/O. BASHEER, 5/253, MULLAKKAL HOUSE, KANJIRAKKAD, PERUMBAVOOR.

¶26

16 ANOOP, S/O. BAVAKUNJU, KEEZHEDAM HOUSE, VENGOLA P.O, PERUMBAVOOR.

¶27

17 GOPAKUMAR, S/O.BALAKRISHNA PILLA, MADATHUMALI HOUSE, THANDEKKAD, MUDICKAL P.O,

¶28

18 RAJAPPAN, S/O. KUTTAPPAN, 9/150, KANNUKALI MECHIL, PERUMBAVOOR-683 542.

¶29

19 SALIM, S/O. SULAIMAN, PATTARUMADHOM, VENGOLA, PERUMBAVOOR.

¶30

20 JUMALIA, S/O.K.P. ALIKUNJU, KOORAKKADAN HOUSE, MUDICKAL P. O.

¶31

BY ADVS.

¶32

SRI.S.VINOD BHAT KUM.ANAGHA LAKSHMY RAMAN

¶33

RESPONDENTS(RESPONDENTS IN THE WRIT PETITION):

¶34

1 JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, IRINGOLE P.O, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN-683 548.

¶35

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION, PERUMBAVOOR-683 542.

¶36

BY ADVS. SRI. P.SANTHOSH KUMAR, SPL.GP

¶37

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶38

RP.No.160/2020 IN WP(C)No.31334/2018

¶39

-3-

¶40

ORDER

¶41

Dated this the 23rd day of November 2020

¶42

The review arise from W.P.(C)No.31334 of 2018 filed by the auto rickshaw drivers.

¶43

In the State of Kerala, the contract carriage permits

¶44

are issued to auto rickshaws with a stipulation of parking at a particular location. This is due to the constraints of space and management of the location has become a difficult task for the transport authority.

¶45

The auto rickshaw drivers, who were granted permission by the Joint Regional Transport Officer, Perumbavoor, came with the writ petition challenging stipulation in the permit to park at a particular location and also challenging the stipulation for parking and picking up passengers within the city.

¶46

This Court disposed of W.P.(C)No.31334 of 2018 on 31.10.2019 without inferring with the stipulation regarding the halting place. However, this Court permitted the petitioners to

¶47

RP.No.160/2020 IN WP(C)No.31334/2018

¶48

-4-

¶49

pick up passengers within the Ernakulam District without permitting them to halt at the place of their choice.

¶50

The review has come essentially pointing out the

¶51

fact that this Court had not adverted to the purport of Rule 156 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short, ' the Rules'). According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, Rule 156 of the Rules only contemplates imposing a condition of the permit of every contract carriage that the vehicle shall normally be stationed at the place specified in the permit by the Transport Authority granting the permit. The learned counsel referred to the various provisions in the Motor Vehicles Act and argued that stipulation of place of halting place in the permit cannot prevent the petitioners from parking at any other place other than the place specified in the permit.

¶52

It is obvious that the place of parking is specified in the permit as it is being a part of pattern of such condition that is followed in the entire State.

¶53

The learned Special Government Pleader submitted

¶54

¶55

-5-

¶56

that similar stipulations have been made in all the permits

¶57

issued in the State to park auto rickshaws in the specified area. According to the learned Special Government Pleader, it is to

¶58

avoid clash and conflict among the permit holders.

¶59

The present pattern of stipulation in regard to the parking area in a permit issued appears, is being followed in the entire State. If this Court interferes with the decision now taken by the RTO allowing the petitioners to park at any place of their choice that would result in chaos and disorder. It would also affect other auto rickshaw permit holders.

¶60

In an era of technology where online platform is being used to avail the service of auto rickshaws, perhaps this kind of issue can be reduced. If all the auto rickshaws are coming under a single platform, and are allowed to operate at any place of their choice, the issue like this choosing a parking place would not arise. The problem has arisen in the State for the reason that the State has to find out a place for halting of the auto rickshaws and beneficiary of the service has to

¶61

¶62

-6-

¶63

approach at a particular place where the auto rickshaws are allowed to park. Time has come to change the methodology of the service being provided. The auto rickshaws have to ply and reach up to the door-steps of the availer of such services. This would, in fact, be beneficial to the consumer of such services and also to the auto rickshaw drivers, as more people will rely for availing such services. The online aggregators have taken the chunk of taxi service operated through four wheelers. There are chances of providing services by three wheelers also through online. It is appropriate for the State to revisit the policies. If the petitioners' request to choose the place of parking other than the place specified in the permit is accepted, it would result in anarchy and chaos as pointed out. That cannot be addressed in this review petition. The petitioners are at liberty to move the Government and the Transport Authority for taking an appropriate policy decision to change the entire pattern of service being provided by the three wheelers. As of now, I do not find any arbitrariness in deciding

¶64

¶65

-7-

¶66

a particular slot as a place of parking. The RTO's decision is

¶67

one that is based on the power reflected from Rule 156 of the

¶68

Rules. But that should not be a bar for taking a different decision for the common good of all the auto rickshaw drivers in the State. That relief can be left open to the petitioners to pursue in different proceedings.

¶69

With liberty as above, the review petition is dismissed.

¶70

Sd/-

¶71

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE

¶72

akv

Chinnumol, v. Joint Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chinnumol, v. Joint Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raju Joseph Kuzhikala Vs Koipuram Grama Panchayat

Baiju P.A. Vs the State of Kerala

Kuriakose Abraham Vs State of Kerala

M.Abdul Salim Vs Smt.S.Syamala

Anila P.Joy Vs State of Kerala

A.J.Ajosh Vs Kochi Municipal Corporation