Allowed

Mohammed Yousaf T. v. the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Kerala HC14 Oct 2020WP(C)/21115/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A permit holder challenged the RTA's refusal to process his application for replacing his bus with an older model vehicle. The court held that rejection based on model age is illegal, directing the authorities to consider the new vehicle's roadworthiness and viability.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to the Respondent to consider the Petitioner's replacement application based on roadworthiness and viability within six weeks.

Mohammed Yousaf T. Vs the Secretary, Regional… — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 22ND ASWINA, 1942 WP(C).No.21115 OF 2020(L)

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

MOHAMMED YOUSAF T. S/O. MOHAMMED, THANIKKAT HOUSE, VETTOM P.O, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SIDHEEQUE, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. ASSAINAR, ULLATTIL HOUSE, P.O K. PURAM, TANALUR, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM.

¶7

BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON

¶8

RESPONDENT:

¶9

THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM, CIVIL STATION P.O, UPHILL, MALAPPURAM-676 505

¶10

SRI KP HARISH SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

WP(C).No.21115 OF 2020

¶13

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

The petitioner herein is the holder of a regular permit on the route Tanur - Vettamcheerppu. He contends that he is operating the service using the Stage Carriage bearing Registration No.KL 55-U 5191. According to the petitioner, the vehicle with which he is operating the service had to be replaced for which purpose, he filed Ext.P3 application invoking the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed thereunder. According to the petitioner, his application is not being entertained on the ground that the vehicle which he has offered for replacement is an older model vehicle. The petitioner contends that the refusal on the part of the respondent cannot be sustained in view of law laid down by this Court in Exts.P5 and P6 judgments wherein it was held that the 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. It is in the above backdrop that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking directions to the respondent to consider his application for replacement.

¶16

WP(C).No.21115 OF 2020

¶17

¶18

I have heard Sri.I.Dinesh Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶19

In Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam and

¶20

another v. Shaju (ILR 2017(3) Ker 720), a Division Bench of this Court had occasion to approve the judgment of a learned Single Judge holding that it was the roadworthiness and viability of the vehicle which has to be considered and not the model of the vehicle, meaning thereby, the year of manufacture of the vehicle. 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 be ensured by the authorities and this is the aim of the provisions enacted in the Motor Vehicles Act. In other words, if the vehicle is roadworthy, it cannot be said that by replacing a vehicle with an older roadworthy vehicle, the safety of the passenger would in any manner be jeopardized. In view of the above pronouncement, the respondent will have to consider the application in the light of the law laid down.

¶21

Resultantly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 application for replacement of vehicle strictly in accordance with law, after obtaining a report on the roadworthiness and viability of the vehicle taking note of

¶22

WP(C).No.21115 OF 2020

¶23

¶24

law laid down by this Court in Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam (supra). 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 production of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

sru

¶29

WP(C).No.21115 OF 2020

¶30

¶31

APPENDIX

¶32

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶33

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED TO PETITIONER.

¶34

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RC BOOK OF KL 55 U 5191 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLACEMENT APPLICATION DATED 27-08-2020 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RC BOOK OF KL -54 5246 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA NO. 1466/17 DATED 18-07-2017 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 5916/18 DATED 1-3-2018.

¶35

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶36

NIL

Mohammed Yousaf T. v. the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Yousaf T. v. the Secretary, 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

Adhikarath Kunheedhu Vs the District Collector

Ajmal @ Ajmal Ummar Vs the Secretary, the Central Board of Secondary Education

T.B.Kabeer Vs the Regional Transport Authority

K.Eshaque, Vs the District Collector

Sumesh Vs the Superintendent of Polce

Abdul Azees Vs the Inspector of Police