Dismissed

Johnson M.M. v. the Regional Transport Authority

Kerala HC4 Aug 2020WA/1005/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The double bench of the Kerala High Court dismissed writ appeals filed against a single judge order dismissing writs challenging the grant of transport permits. The lower court refused to extend a stay pending revision petitions under the Motor Vehicles Act, citing the availability of statutory remedies and lack of extraordinary circumstances.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeals dismissed; no observation made on merits of the underlying writ petitions or the revocation of RTA's permit order.

Johnson M.M. Vs the Regional Transport… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1942

¶7

WA.No.1005 OF 2020

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 11837/2020(D) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 21.7.2020

¶9

APPELLANT/PETITIONERS:

¶10

1 JOHNSON M.M. AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.MATHAI, MANKUNNEL HOUSE, MANNAMANGALAM, THRISSUR.

¶11

2 S.MOHAMMED SALIM AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.SANTH MOHAMMED, CHAKKARAKIZHAVAN HOUSE, EAST STREET, KODUVAYUR, PALAKKAD.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.M.JITHESH MENON

¶13

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, RTA, COLLECTORATE.P.O., PALAKKAD-678 001.

¶15

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

¶16

3 R.KRISHNADAS, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, SEETHALAYAM, METTUPALAYAM, THATHAMANGALAM, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD-678 101.

¶17

W.A.Nos.1005 & 1006 of 2020

¶18

¶19

4 THE KERALA STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR PIN-695 023.

¶20

R4 BY SRI.P.C. CHACKO, SC, SRI. SURIN GEORGE IPE, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER R3 BY ADV.SRI.G. PRABHAKARAN SRI. O.D. SIVADAS, SC

¶21

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.08.2020 ALONG WITH W.A.1006/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

W.A.Nos.1005 & 1006 of 2020

¶23

¶24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶25

PRESENT

¶26

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶27

¶28

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶29

TUESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1942

¶30

WA.No.1006 OF 2020

¶31

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 11791/2020(Y) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 21.7.2020

¶32

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

¶33

1 JOHNSON M.M. AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.MATHAI, MANKUNNEL HOUSE, MANNAMANGALAM, THRISSUR.

¶34

2 S.MOHAMMED SALIM AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.SANTH MOHAMMED, CHAKKARAKIZHAVAN HOUSE, EAST STREET, KODUVAYUR, PALAKKAD.

¶35

BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON

¶36

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶37

1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, RTA, COLLECTORATE.P.O., PALAKKAD-678 001.

¶38

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

¶39

3 R.KRISHNADAS, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, SEETHALAYAM, METTUPALAYAM, THATHAMANGALAM, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD-678 101.

¶40

W.A.Nos.1005 & 1006 of 2020

¶41

¶42

4 THE KERALA STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR PIN-695 023.

¶43

R4 BY SRI.P.C. CHACKO, SC, KSRTC SRI. SURIN GEORGE IPE, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER R3 BY ADV.SRI.G. PRABHAKARAN SRI. O.D. SIVADAS,SC

¶44

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.08.2020, ALONG WITH W.A.1005/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶45

W.A.Nos.1005 & 1006 of 2020

¶46

¶47

JUDGMENT

¶48

Dated this the 4^th day of August, 2020

¶49

S.Manikumar, C.J.

¶50

In W.P.(C)No.11791 of 2020, the petitioners (Mr.M.M.Johnson and

¶51

Mr.S.Mohammed Salim) have prayed for the following reliefs:

¶52

“i. Issue a writ of certiorari or such other writ in the said nature, quashing Ext.P9 decision of the RTA as well as Ext.P12 report of the Secretary, RTA, Palakkad;

¶53

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction, to place Ext.P15 objection preferred by the petitioners against Ext.P12 report of Secretary, RTA before the RTA on the objections raised by the petitioner and on adjudication by the RTA alone regular permit may be issued;

¶54

iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction, commanding the Secretary, RTA, Palakkad to remeasure the notified route on the route Chittur-Alathur after notice to petitioners, KSRTC and the 3^rd respondent and furnish on actual distance of overlapping of notified route.”

¶55

The very same petitioners have filed another writ petition, W.P.

¶56

(C)No.11837 of 2020 seeking for the following reliefs:

¶57

“i. Issue a writ of certiorari or such other writ in the said nature, quashing Ext.P9 decision of the RTA as well as Ext.P12 report of the Secretary, RTA, Palakkad;

¶58

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction, to place Ext.P15 objection preferred by the

¶59

W.A.Nos.1005 & 1006 of 2020

¶60

¶61

petitioners against Ext.P12 report of Secretary, RTA before the RTA on the objections raised by the petitioner and on adjudication by the RTA alone regular permit may be issued;

¶62

iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction, commanding the Secretary, RTA, Palakkad to remeasure the notified route on the route KozhinjamparaChittur-Alathur after notice to petitioners, KSRTC and the 3^rd respondent and furnish on actual distance of overlapping of notified route.”

¶63

They were aggrieved against the grant of regular permits to Mr.R.Krishnadas, respondent No.3 in both the writ petitions. Adverting to the contentions raised in both the writ petitions, writ court decided to dispose of both the writ petitions together. The plea of the petitioners therein as summarised by the writ court at paragraphs 1 to 4 are hereunder:

¶64

“The grievance of the petitioners in these writ petitions relate to the grant of regular permits to the 3rd respondent to operate along the route Kozhinjampara - Alathur via Chittur and on the route Chittur - Alathur. There has been a series of litigations which finally led to Ext.P9 proceedings as per which, fresh regular stage carriage permits were granted to the 3rd respondent to operate on the above routes subject to settlement of timings and production of current records of a suitable stage carriage.

¶65

It appears that the petitioners had approached this Court challenging the grant of permit and had preferred W.P. (C) No.25532 of 2019 and W.P(C) No.26617 of 2019

¶66

W.A.Nos.1005 & 1006 of 2020

¶67

¶68

contending that regular permit was granted in violation of scheme as overlapping is more than 5%. By Ext.P11 judgment, which is dated 16.12.2019, this Court had ordered as follows:

¶69

“Considering the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the Secretary shall conduct an enquiry within a period of one month. If the Secretary’s report indicates that the overlapping is less than 5 km, it is within the permissible limit. Necessarily, the order passed now by the Regional Transport Authority can be affirmed. However, if the report indicates that the overlapping is less (sic more) than 5 km, the Regional Transport Authority’s order would stand revoked as it exceeds 5 km.”

¶70

In terms of the directions issued by this Court, the RTA conducted an enquiry and it was found that the distance of overlapping with notified routes in the proposed route is within the permissible limits.

¶71

The petitioners have therefore approached this Court seeking to quash Ext.P9 decision of the RTA, which is dated 30.7.2019 and also Ext.P12 report of the Secretary, RTA and also for a further direction to the Secretary, RTA to remeasure the notified route along the routes.”

¶72

Taking note of the statutory remedy of filing a revision petition before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the writ court dismissed the writ petition. While considering the request of the petitioners therein that there was a long string of litigations between the parties and that there was stay of further proceedings during the pendency of the above writ petitions and

¶73

W.A.Nos.1005 & 1006 of 2020

¶74

¶75

therefore, extension of stay be granted pending disposal of the revision petitions filed before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, writ court ordered that there is no reason to extend the stay or grant the petitioners any further indulgence. For brevity, paragraph No.6 of the common judgment in W.P.(C)Nos.11791 of 2020 and 11837 of 2020 dated 21.7.2020 is extracted:

¶76

“6. I find that the petitioners had approached this Court with this writ petition though they had a statutory remedy in approaching the State Transport Appellate Tribunal under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act. When W.P.(C) No.11837/2020 had come up for hearing on 18.6.2020, this Court had directed the petitioners to prefer revision petition before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. It is now submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the writ petitions that they have approached the Revisional Authority challenging the orders impugned in these writ petitions. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners fervently requested this Court to keep the proceedings in abeyance till the revision petition or the stay petition filed along with is taken up and disposed of, having considered the nature of assertions made by the petitioners and the long string of litigations between the parties, I find no reason to extend the stay or grant the petitioners any further indulgence.”

¶77

The above said common judgment is assailed inter alia on the

¶78

following grounds:

¶79

W.A.Nos.1005 & 1006 of 2020

¶80

¶81

“a. The order of the learned single Judge that he is not inclined to extend the interim order till stay petition or revision petition is disposed on the ground that litigation is pending for long and it will convey a wrong message to the learned Tribunal and prevent the Tribunal from exercising jurisdiction independently. This will give undue advantage to the 3^rd respondent and it is against the basic principles of equity and fair play.

¶82

b. The reason given for not extending the interim order for a short period till such time stay petition or petition to condone delay is considered for the reason that there has been a long string of litigations is legally not sustainable.”

¶83

Though the learned counsel for the appellants in the writ appeals insisted for a stay of the proceedings in Ext.P9 ie. decision of the Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad dated 30.7.2019 and Ext.P12 report of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority dated 14.2.2020 and also the further directions issued to the Regional Transport Authority to measure the notified routes, pending disposal of the revision petitions stated to have been filed under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, this court is not inclined to accept the said request for the reason that it is for the revisional authority to consider as to whether the revision petitioners have made out a prima facie case for staying the operation of Ext.P9 decision of the Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad dated 30.7.2019 and Ext.P12 report of the Secretary, Regional Transport

¶84

W.A.Nos.1005 & 1006 of 2020

¶85

¶86

Authority dated 14.2.2020 and the further directions issued.

¶87

When the scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for an appellate and revisional jurisdiction to be exercised by the statutory authorities and that when the procedure contemplated, in our view, is efficacious in nature, it would be inappropriate for this court to encroach upon the powers and jurisdiction of the authorities and grant interim orders of stay of the proceedings which are challenged before such appellate or revisional authority, as the case may be.

¶88

Further more, when the writ petitions are dismissed on the grounds that the petitioners/appellants have already approached the revisional authority by filing petitions under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it would not be appropriate for the writ court to issue any direction or stay or extend the stay, in a matter that is subjudice before the revisional authority. We do not find any error in the exercise of jurisdiction by the writ court. Indeed the courts exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can issue any directions granting stay of the proceedings pending before the statutory authorities, an appeal or revision as the case may be, but then, it is not done as a matter of routine exceptions could be in extraordinary circumstances, such as demolition of building, any matter including fundamental rights, and that too, after evaluating the facts and circumstances of each case.

¶89

Finally, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that

¶90

W.A.Nos.1005 & 1006 of 2020

¶91

¶92

Mr.R.Krishnadas and the Kerala State Transport Corporation, Thiruvananthapuram are not entering appearance in the delay petition and purposefully protract the case and consequently the revision petitions is not taken up for disposal on merits. It is for the appellants to take appropriate steps for service of notice on the respondents in the delay and revision petitions, as the case may be.

¶93

Learned counsel for the appellants refuted that all the issues raised in the writ appeal be directed to be left open. When the writ court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case projected in the writ petitions, it goes without saying that no opinion was recorded by the wit court. Therefore, there is no need for us to make any observation.

¶94

In the light of the discussion above, we find no merit in the writ appeals.

¶95

In the result, writ appeals are dismissed.

¶96

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶97

Sd/- S.Manikumar, Chief Justice

¶98

Sd/-

¶99

Shaji P.Chaly Judge

¶100

vpv

¶101

/TRUE COPY/

¶102

P.A. TO JUDGE

Johnson M.M. v. the Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Johnson M.M. v. the Regional Transport Authority

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

Sinoj .I.v Vs State of Kerala

Jayakumar T.V Vs State of Kerala

C. R. Mahesh Vs Union of India

K.a.Narayanan Vs Alagappanagar Grama Panchayat

Neelakanton M.N Vs B.Andrew Prabhu

P.Anil Kumar @ Chempazhanthi Anil Vs the Indian Red Cross Society