Quashed

Subramanian v. the Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram

Kerala HC2 Sept 2021WP(C)/10707/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed an order of the Regional Transport Authority treating a vehicle replacement application as a fresh permit. The Court directed the Authority to reconsider the applications for permit renewal and replacement afresh, considering a new vehicle shown by the petitioner that had no material difference, and to pass fresh orders expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

The order of the 1st respondent (Ext P5) is quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider applications for replacement and renewal of permit afresh and pass fresh orders.

Subramanian Vs the Regional Transport Authority… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 11TH BHADRA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 10707 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SUBRAMANIAN,AGED 45 YEARS

¶8

S/O. LATE NARAYANAN, THALAKKATT HOUSE, THUYYAM P.O., EDAPPAL, MALAPPURAM-679 576

¶9

BY ADV I.DINESH MENON

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM MALAPPURAM, COLLECTORATE P.O., MALAPPURAM-676 505

¶12

2 THE SECRETARY,REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM, COLLECTORATE P.O., MALAPPURAM-676 505

¶13

BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIMAL K NATH

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO. 10707 OF 2021

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The petitioner's applications for renewal of

¶19

permit and for replacement were ordered by the 1^st respondent as per Ext P5 order. The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the direction in Ext.P5, to consider the application for replacement as an application for fresh permit, and also the endorsement made thereon by the 2^nd respondent in the following terms:

¶20

“Communicated to the applicant with direction to produce current records of the stage carriage KL-06-C-337 within 30 days, failing

¶21

which this sanction is liable to be revoked.”

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶23

Sri.I.Dinesh Menon and also the learned Government Pleader.

¶24

Petitioner was the holder of a regular permit on the route Palapetty – Edappal with stage carriage

¶25

¶26

WP(C) NO. 10707 OF 2021

¶27

No.KL-06 C 337. The permit was valid till 12.07.2020. During the currency of the permit, on 23.07.2019, the petitioner filed an application for replacement of the vehicle. The application was rejected by the 1^st respondent. The order was challenged by the petitioner before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in MVAA No.29/2020. The Tribunal as per judgment dated 30.07.2020 set aside the order and directed re-consideration of the application for replacement and to grant replacement

¶28

if there is no other legal impediment. In the meanwhile, on 15.06.2020, that is, prior to the expiry of the permit and within the statutory time stipulated, the petitioner filed an application for renewal of the permit. This Court, as per Ext P4 judgment in W.P(C) No.18573/2020 directed consideration of the applications. Pursuant thereto, the 1^st respondent passed Ext P5 order.

¶29

As per Ext P5, the application for renewal of permit was ordered with a direction to produce the

¶30

¶31

WP(C) NO. 10707 OF 2021

¶32

current records of the vehicle within one month. As regards the application for replacement, in the light of Rule 174 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules it was ordered that, since the fresh vehicle differs in material aspects, the application is to be treated as an application for fresh permit.

¶33

In the writ petition, the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit dated 24.08.2021, paragraph 13 of which reads thus:

¶34

“13. As a matter of abundant caution, on instructions given for and on behalf of the Secretary, I have brought another vehicle bearing registration number KL-27 8708 which is having the very same seating capacity and hence there is no question of material difference between the incoming vehicle and outgoing vehicle. I have no objection in issuing the period in respect of SC KL-12 D 8199 or in respect of the vehicle now procured by me is KL – 27 8708. The true copy of the RC Book of the said vehicle is

¶35

¶36

WP(C) NO. 10707 OF 2021

¶37

produced herewith and marked as Exhibit P-9.”

¶38

According to the petitioner, he has procured

¶39

another vehicle which does not have any material difference from the existing carriage and if it is found to be factually correct, then the application for replacement is liable to be granted.

¶40

I am of the opinion that the 1^st respondent

¶41

may consider the suitability of the new vehicle suggested by the petitioner namely, KL-27 8708, and ascertain if there is any material difference in terms of Rule 174 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles

¶42

Rules. As ordered by the Tribunal in MVAA No.29/2020, if it is found that there is no material difference and there is no other legal impediment,

¶43

the application for replacement is liable to be granted. The application for renewal of the permit and for replacement having been filed during the currency of the permit, it is only proper that the applications be re-considered and fresh orders passed.

¶44

WP(C) NO. 10707 OF 2021

¶45

¶46

Accordingly, Ext P5 order of the 1^st respondent is quashed. The 1^st respondent shall consider the applications for replacement and for renewal of

¶47

permit afresh in the light of the facts noticed afore, and pass fresh orders as expeditiously as possible.

SATHISH NINAN

JUDGE

vdv

WP(C) NO. 10707 OF 2021

¶52

¶53

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10707/2021

¶54

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶55

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT OF THE PETITIONER DT 23.12.08
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS REJECTING APPLICATION FOR REPLACEMENT DATED 15.10.2019
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN M.V.A.A.NO.29/2020 DATED 30.7.2020
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.18573/2020 DATED 20.10.2020
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE RTA SIGNED ON 9.3.2021
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT ISSUED IN RESPECT OF SC KL 12 D 8199 DATED 8.3.2021
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTO OF OLD VEHICLE KL-06 C 337

Subramanian v. the Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subramanian v. the Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram

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

Jayarajan V.V Vs the Registrar of Cooperative Societies

Abdul Gafoor K.K. Vs the Secretary

Sibi K.George Vs the Secretary

Khadeeja Vs District Collector

Muhammed @ Muhammed Khader Vs Jeggy Varghese

Abdul Wahab Vs Jafar Malik