Allowed

Bijo Jose, v. the Regional Transport Authority

Kerala HC19 Oct 2020WP(C)/18869/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's request for vehicle clearance without insisting on a permitless certificate, relying on prior judgments that found no legal basis for such an insistence during pending renewal applications.

What did the court decide?

Direct the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's request for vehicle clearance without demanding a permitless certificate while the renewal application is pending.

Bijo Jose, Vs the Regional Transport Authority — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 27TH ASWINA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.18869 OF 2020(G)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

BIJO JOSE, AGED 44, S/O. P.T. JOSE, NADUVILECHETHALIL HOUSE, KOODALLUR P.O., KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, LITTO MON JOSE, S/O. JOSE, AGED 36, AMMANKUZHI HOUSE, KOODALLOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON

¶9

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶10

1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM, COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686002.

¶11

2 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM, COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686002.

¶12

SRI K.P HARISH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No.18869 OF 2020

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The petitioner is the holder of a regular permit on the strength of which he was operating a stage carriage on the route Ettumanoor - Kuruvilangad. He states that the said permit was issued in respect of stage carriage No.KL 05/Q 3380. According to him, he had submitted an application for renewal 15 days prior to the expiry of the basic permit. However, his application for renewal was considered by the RTA, Kottayam and the same was rejected. He is stated to have preferred a statutory revision petition before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal which is pending. While so, the petitioner decided to replace the vehicle for which he submitted Ext.P4 request for issuance of a clearance certificate for the Stage Carriage No.KL 05/Q 3380 as it had attained more than 15 years of age. His prayer in this writ petition is to direct the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P4 request relating to stage carriage No.KL 05/Q 3380 without insisting for permitless certificate to be obtained by the petitioner while his renewal application is pending.

¶18

Sri. I.Dinesh Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this Court in judgment dated 15.02.2017 in W.P. (C).No.1837/2017 and in judgment dated 25.07.2018 in W.P. (C).No.24277/2018, copies of which are produced as Exts.P5 and P6 had held that so long as there is no legal impediment for the petitioner to sell his vehicle,

¶19

WP(C).No.18869 OF 2020

¶20

¶21

the respondent cannot insist upon the petitioner to produce the permitless certificate. The prayer of the petitioner is to direct the 2nd respondent to consider his request in the light of Exts.P5 and P6 orders.

¶22

I have heard the learned Government Pleader and I have considered the submissions advanced.

¶23

In para No.3 of the judgment of this Court dated 15.02.2017 in W.P.(C).No.1837 of 2017, it was thus held by this Court.

¶24

” The learned Government Pleader pointed out that the permitless certificate is insisted since the application for renewal of the permit in respect of the vehicle is pending. In other words, the stand of the respondent is that the petitioner is not entitled to transfer the vehicle during the pendency of the application for renewal of the permit. No provision in the Motor Vehicles Act empowering the Registering Authority to insist a permit-less certificate of the vehicle from the Regional Transport Authority concerned for effecting transfer in respect of a vehicle is brought to the notice of this Court. Likewise, no provision interdicting the sale of the vehicle during the pendency of an application for renewal of the permit issued in respect of the same is also brought to the notice of this Court. The question whether the petitioner is entitled to pursue the application for renewal without there being a vehicle is a matter for the Regional Transport Authority concerned to consider at the relevant point of time. So long as there is no legal impediment for the petitioner to sell his vehicle, the impugned order, to the extent it directs the petitioner to produce the permit-less certificate, is unsustainable. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the interim order passed by this Court on 20.01.2017 directing consideration of Exts.P2 and P2(a) applications without insisting the permit-less certificate is

¶25

WP(C).No.18869 OF 2020

¶26

¶27

made absolute. ”

¶28

In that view of the matter, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P4 request, if the same is pending before the said

¶29

authority, in the light of the observations above and pass orders on its merits expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶30

This petition is disposed of.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

sru

¶35

WP(C).No.18869 OF 2020

¶36

¶37

APPENDIX

¶38

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:

¶39

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RENEWAL APPLICATION DATED 15.02.2019. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.06.2019. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 21.08.2020. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 1837/2017 DATED 15.02.2017. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 24277/2018 DATED 25.07.2018.

¶40

RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS: NIL

¶41

/TRUE COPY/

¶42

P.A. TO JUDGE

Bijo Jose, v. the Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bijo Jose, 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Jessy Roy, Vs the District Collector

T. T. Abdul Gafoor Vs M. Kuttimammad

Indus Towers Limited Vs the Station House Officer

Sivaraman V.P. Vs the Secretary, the Regional Transport Authority

Palakkal Kunhi Muhammed Vs the Circle Inspector of Police

P. K. Nazer Vs State of Kerala