Partly allowed

P.Mohanan v. the Regional Transport Authority

Kerala HC21 Jan 2021WP(C)/18517/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A stage carriage permit transferee sought a temporary permit pending renewal, while a rival operator challenged the Tribunal's renewal direction. The court upheld that direction and ordered immediate issuance of a temporary permit, allowing the transferee's petition and dismissing the rival operator's petition.

What did the court decide?

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, was directed to issue a temporary permit to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.18051/2020 forthwith.

P.Mohanan Vs the Regional Transport Authority — Kerala HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2021/1ST MAGHA, 1942 WP(C).No.18051 OF 2020(F)

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

P.GIRISH KUMAR, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.SUBRAMANIAN, PUTHIYAVEETTIL, WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE-5.

¶7

BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE SECRETARY, THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 020.

¶10

ADDL. 2 P.MOHANAN, S/O. BALAN, PINNANTH HOUSE, NORTH BEYPORE P.O., KOZHIKODE.

¶11

(ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 24.09.2020 IN IA NO.1/2020.)

¶12

R2 BY ADV. I.DINESH MENON GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT RASHMI K.M.

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-01-2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).18517/2020(L), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C) Nos.18051&18517/2020

¶15

: 2 :

¶16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶17

PRESENT

¶18

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶19

THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2021/1ST MAGHA, 1942

¶20

WP(C).No.18517 OF 2020(L)

¶21

PETITIONER:

¶22

P.MOHANAN, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. BALAN, PINNANATH HOUSE, NORTH BEYPORE P.O, KOZHIKODE.

¶23

BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON

¶24

RESPONDENTS:

¶25

1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE, COLLECTORATE P.O, KOZHIKODE-673 020

¶26

2 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, COLLECTORATE P.O, KOZHIKODE-673 020

¶27

3 P. GIRISH KUMAR, S/O. SUBRAMANIAN, PUTHIYAVEETTIL, WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE-673 005

¶28

4 USHA MURALI, USHA NIVAS, PUTHIYANGADI, KOZHIKODE-673 001 NOW ADDRESSED AS: USHA MURALEEDHARAN, W/O. K.A MURALEEDHARAN, 'PUSHPAM', P.O KOLIYAKODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 607

¶29

WP(C) Nos.18051&18517/2020

¶30

: 3 :

¶31

5 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 034

¶32

ADDL. 6 SADIKKALI.O.P., S/O. LATE MUHAMMED RASHEED, AGED 51 YEARS, KUNNATH HOUSE, BEYPORE.P.O., KOZHIKODE.

¶33

(ADDL.R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 4-112020 IN IA No.4/2020).

¶34

R3 BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS BY ADV. SRI.STALIN PETER DAVIS R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM), SC R6 BY ADV. L.RAJESH NARAYAN R1-2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT RASHMI K.M.

¶35

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-01-2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).18051/2020(F), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶36

WP(C) Nos.18051&18517/2020

: 4 :

J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Dated this the 21^st day of January, 2021 [WP(C) Nos.18051 & 18517 of 2020]

¶41

These two writ petitions arise out of the same set of

¶42

facts, have issues in common and hence are being heard and disposed of together. W.P.(C) No.18051 of 2020 is filed by a Stage Carrier Operator seeking to consider his application for Temporary Permit taking note of the directions of State Transport Appellate Tribunal. W.P.(C) No.18517 of 2020 has been filed by another Stage Carriage Operator seeking to quash Ext.P3 judgment of the said Tribunal in MVAA No.188/2016 and to direct the Tribunal to reconsider the entire issue and pass fresh orders. Incidental reliefs are also sought for. The parties and documents are referred to in this judgment as they are arrayed/marked in W.P.(C) No.18051 of 2020, for convenience.

¶43

WP(C) Nos.18051&18517/2020

¶44

: 5 :

¶45

One Mrs. Usha Murali (the 4^th respondent in W.P. (C) No.18517 of 2020) was a permit holder of stage carriage No. KRD/8253 operating on the Beypore-Bhatt Road in Kozhikode City. She transferred the permit to the petitioner and the RTA as per decision dated 29.09.2003 allowed the transfer. As the vehicle No.KRD/8253 had crossed 15 years, the petitioner produced records in respect of vehicle No.KL-11R-6457 for the purpose of endorsement of transfer. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority (RTA) refused to endorse the transfer of permit and replacement of the vehicle on the ground of material difference. Thereupon the petitioner produced another vehicle KL-11R-5997. The issue of transfer of permit and replacement of vehicle were placed before the RTA. In the interregnum, the petitioner was permitted to operate on the basis of temporary permits issued by the respondent. The period of the permit expired on 21.08.2006.

¶46

The RTA rejected petitioner's application for renewal and replacement on 25.04.2007. The petitioner

¶47

WP(C) Nos.18051&18517/2020

¶48

: 6 :

¶49

challenged the said order in MVAA 327/2007 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT). The Tribunal directed the RTA to grant renewal and replacement to the petitioner.

¶50

The RTA however again rejected the applications. The petitioner thereupon preferred appeal MVAA 264/2009 before the STAT. The Tribunal directed the RTA to grant renewal of the permit and directed the petitioner to make available current records of the vehicle for necessary endorsement. The RTA, however, rejected the application again, as per Ext.P1 dated 09.07.2009.

¶51

Thereupon, the petitioner preferred yet another appeal MVAA 502/2009 before the STAT. In the said appeal, the Tribunal passed Ext.P2 judgment on 15.01.2010 directing the RTA to comply with Ext.P1 order of the Tribunal. The State of Kerala challenged Ext.P2 order of the Tribunal filing W.P.(C) No.9902 of 2010. The said writ petition was dismissed on 12.03.2015 as per Ext.P3 judgment. During the pendency of the writ petition, due to the interim order in the writ petition, the petitioner was not able to get renewal of

¶52

WP(C) Nos.18051&18517/2020

¶53

: 7 :

¶54

permit and endorsement of transfer. Finally, the RTA, on 16.02.2016 as per Ext.P4, granted renewal of permit for the period from 22.08.06 to 21.08.2011. The petitioner was permitted to replace the vehicle with stage carriage bearing No.KL-11Q-5601. The RTA granted further renewal of the permit for the period from 22.08.2011 to 21.08.2016.

¶55

The additional 2^nd respondent, another Stage Carriage Operator, filed W.P.(C) No.10450 of 2016 challenging Ext.P4 order. This Court, by Ext.P5 judgment dated 28.03.2016, quashed the order of the RTA on the ground that simultaneous consideration of an application for renewal of permit and an application for replacement of the vehicle, is impermissible in the light of the judgment of this Court in Usman v. Regional Transport Authority [ 2015 (4) KLT 25] . The Regional Transport Authority was directed to reconsider first the application for renewal of permit. Though the petitioner challenged the said Ext.P5 judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court filing W.A. No.1092 of 2016, a Division Bench of this Court dismissed the writ appeal

¶56

WP(C) Nos.18051&18517/2020

¶57

: 8 :

¶58

with clarifications, as per Ext.P6 judgment.

¶59

Pursuant to the directions in Exts.P5 and P6 judgments, the RTA considered the application for renewal of permit and rejected the same on 15.11.2016, as per Ext.P7. The said Ext.P7 order of the RTA was challenged by the petitioner filing MVAA No.188 of 2016. The STAT set aside Ext.P7 order and remitted the issue back to the RTA for reconsideration on 14.06.2017, as per Ext.P8. The additional 2^nd respondent filed O.P.(C) No.2316 of 2017 challenging Ext.P8 order of the STAT. The said O.P.(C) was disposed of by this Court on 10.04.2018, as per Ext.P9 judgment directing the STAT to reconsider the matter. Thereafter, the issue was reconsidered by the Tribunal and the Tribunal, as per Ext.P10 judgment dated 16.07.2020, held that the order of the RTA rejecting the application for renewal of permit submitted by the petitioner is not sustainable. The order of the RTA was set aside and the RTA was directed to grant renewal of permit to the petitioner and consider the application of the petitioner for replacement thereafter.

¶60

WP(C) Nos.18051&18517/2020

¶61

: 9 :

¶62

The petitioner states that the application for renewal

¶63

is pending with the RTA. Pending the application, the petitioner submitted a request to grant renewal of permit in view of Ext.P10. His stage carriage No.KL-11Q-5601 is not presently available and hence the petitioner submitted Ext.P11 application for replacement with stage carriage No.KL11/X 884. The petitioner also sought for issuance of Temporary Permit, submitting Ext.P12 request. Ext.P12 request is not being favourably considered. It is in the said circumstances that the petitioner seeks intervention of this Court and to direct the respondent to entertain and consider Ext.P11 (sic) application for Temporary Permit.

¶64

W.P.(C) No.18517 of 2020 has been filed by the additional 2^nd respondent in W.P.(C) No.18051 of 2020. The additional 2^nd respondent is an existing operator on the route Beypore-Puthiyappa with a set of timings. The additional 2^nd respondent contends that Ext.P10 judgment of the STAT is legally and factually incorrect. The additional 2^nd respondent stated that application for renewal of permit can be submitted

¶65

WP(C) Nos.18051&18517/2020

¶66

: 10 :

¶67

by a permit holder only. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.18051 of 2020 has not become a permit holder. In paragraph 4 of the judgment in W.A. No.1092 of 2016, a Division Bench of this Court has held that application for renewal of permit can be made only by one who is the holder of the permit and that a holder of a permit cannot be one who stands with a permit which has expired by eflux of time.

¶68

The additional 2^nd respondent stated that in view of the judgment of this Court in Usman v. Regional Transport Authority (supra), a replacement application is maintainable only by a permit holder. Rule 20 of the STAT Rules prohibits the Tribunal from usurping the powers of the original authority. The Tribunal has acted in violation of Rule 20. A transferee of stage carriage permit cannot automatically step into the shoes of the permit holder, except by known means of law. As long as the petitioner remains only a transferee and not a permit holder, his application for renewal of permit cannot be entertained. The judgment of the STAT in MVAA No.188/2016 is therefore liable to be set aside.

¶69

WP(C) Nos.18051&18517/2020

¶70

: 11 :

¶71

The learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that in view of the judgment of this Court in Ext.P6 and the judgment of the STAT in MVAA 188/2016, the petitioner is entitled to get renewal of permit applied for by him and thereafter the RTA is bound to consider his application for replacement. Pending consideration of his application for renewal of permit, the Authority is bound to issue Temporary Permit to the petitioner.

¶72

The learned counsel for the additional 2^nd respondent would state that an application for renewal of permit presupposes an existing permit, in view of Section 81(4)(b)(I) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The language of Rule 172(3) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 would also show that application for renewal of permit presupposes an existing permit. The petitioner is not holding any permit at all and therefore there is no question of granting extension of permit to the petitioner.

¶73

The learned counsel for the additional 2^nd respondent would further submit that permit was in the name

¶74

WP(C) Nos.18051&18517/2020

¶75

: 12 :

¶76

of Mrs.Usha Murali and the said Usha Murali did not submit application for renewal of permit. The existing permit was for stage carriage bearing No.KRD-8253 and it expired on 21.08.2006. The said vehicle completed 15 years on 12.08.1997. The learned counsel for the additional 2^nd respondent relied on the judgment in Rashinlal v. RTA, Kozhikode [2004 (1) KLT 1091] , Abdul Wahab K.S. v. Secretary Regional Transport Authority [2015 (4) KLT 268] and Usman v. Regional Road Transport Authority [2015 (4) KLT 25] and argued that renewal and replacement applications cannot be considered simultaneously and only holder of a permit can apply for replacement. This was also so held in Ext.P21 judgment in W.A. No.1094 of 2016 filed by the petitioner.

¶77

The learned counsel for the additional 2^nd respondent relying on Rule 148 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, argued that if motor vehicles tax in respect of the stage carriage is not paid in time, the permit will stand suspended. In view of Section 15 of Motor Vehicles Taxation

¶78

WP(C) Nos.18051&18517/2020

¶79

: 13 :

¶80

Act, 1976, if tax remains unpaid, validity of the permit in respect of the stage carriage would cease to exist on expiry of the period.

¶81

The learned counsel for the additional 2^nd respondent further argued that the STAT in fact by directing the RTA to grant permit to the petitioner, has usurped the power of the RTA, which is prohibited under Rule 20 of the Kerala State Transport Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1988. The impugned Ext.P10 order of STAT is therefore grossly illegal and is liable to be set aside. Relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gajraj Singh v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and others [AIR 1997 SC 412] , the learned counsel pointed out that right to renewal of permit is not a vested right. Therefore, there cannot be a direction to grant permit to any applicant.

¶82

The learned counsel for the 4^th respondent in W.P. (C) No.18517 of 2020 who transferred the permit in question to the petitioner, supported the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.18051 of 2020 and contended that the permit is liable to be renewed

¶83

WP(C) Nos.18051&18517/2020

¶84

: 14 :

¶85

on an application made by the petitioner.

¶86

Learned counsel for the additional 6^th respondent who is a permit holder, argued that Section 2(31) of the Motor Vehicles Act would show that unless a person possesses a permit in his name, such person cannot be treated as a permit holder. Rule 144(a) of the Motor Vehicles Rules would also show that only if a person holds a permit, he can make an application for renewal of permit. Mere grant of permit is not sufficient to operate stage carriage and one requires a regular permit. Rule 172(3) would also make it clear that a mere order of grant of permit is not sufficient to make a person permit holder. The learned counsel urged that the transferee of a permit cannot enter into the shoes of the permit holder, as long as a permit is not issued to the transferee.

¶87

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.18051 of 2020, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the RTA, the learned counsel appearing for the additional 2^nd respondent (the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.18517 of 2020), the learned counsel appearing for the 4^th

¶88

WP(C) Nos.18051&18517/2020

¶89

: 15 :

¶90

respondent in W.P.(C) No.18517 of 2020, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Managing Director, KSRTC, who is the 5^th respondent in W.P.(C) No.18517 of 2020, and the learned counsel for the additional 6^th respondent.

¶91

The questions arising in these writ petitions are whether the petitioner is entitled to a Temporary Permit pending consideration of his application for renewal of permit by the RTA and whether Ext.P10 judgment of STAT, Ernakulam in MVAA No.188/2016 is legally sustainable. The issues arising are to be considered in the light of the peculiar facts of this case and the various orders passed by the RTA, STAT and this Court in the long drawn litigation process.

¶92

Mrs. Usha Murali, the permit holder, transferred the permit to the petitioner and the RTA allowed the transfer as per decision dated 29.9.2003. However, endorsement of transfer was not made in permit since the replacement vehicle had material difference. The applications for renewal of permit as well as for replacement were made during the

¶93

WP(C) Nos.18051&18517/2020

¶94

: 16 :

¶95

subsistence of the permit. The permit expired on 21.08.2006. The RTA rejected the applications for renewal and replacement only on 25.4.2007. The petitioner filed MVAA No.327/2007 before STAT against RTA's decision. The petitioner's appeal was allowed and STAT was directed to grant renewal and replacement. The RTA, however, again rejected the applications. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed MVAA No.264/2009, and the Tribunal again allowed appeal and remitted the matter, but the RTA again rejected the claim. The petitioner continued his legal fight before the Tribunal. Every time the Tribunal found in favour of the petitioner and remitted the matter back to the RTA, the RTA, as if it is not bound by the directions of the STAT, kept on rejecting the applications of the petitioner. The petitioner had to file MVAA No.327/2007, MVAA No.264/2009 and MVAA No.502/2009. In MVAA No.502/2009, the Tribunal again found in favour of the petitioner and directed the RTA to comply with Ext.P1 order of the Tribunal in MVAA No.264/2009.

¶96

WP(C) Nos.18051&18517/2020

¶97

: 17 :

¶98

The State of Kerala challenged the judgment of the Tribunal in MVAA No.502/2009 by filing W.P.(C) No.9902 of 2010. There was an interim order in the writ petition and hence the petitioner could not get renewal of permit. State's writ petition was dismissed on 12.03.2015, after five years. It was only thereafter that the RTA as per Ext.P4 granted renewal of permit from 22.08.2006 to 21.08.2011 and from 22.08.2011 to 21.08.2016.

¶99

The additional 2^nd respondent challenged Ext.P4 order before this Court, filing W.P.(C) No.10450/2016. This Court allowed the writ petition on the limited ground that simultaneous consideration of applications for renewal of permit and for replacement of vehicle is impermissible in view of Usman's Case (supra). This Court directed the RTA to consider the application for renewal first. The writ appeal preferred against Ext.P5 judgment of this Court was dismissed by the Division Bench observing that the RTA should be guided by all the proceedings from the initial application for transfer of permit.

¶100

WP(C) Nos.18051&18517/2020

¶101

: 18 :

¶102

When this Court remitted the matter to RTA for considering the application for renewal of permit first, one would expect that in view of various appellate orders of the Tribunal in favour of the petitioner, the last of which was upheld by this Court in W.P.(C) No.9902/2010, the RTA would allow the application for renewal of permit, which was the direction of the RTA in Ext.P4. However, the RTA rejected the renewal application observing as follows:-

¶103

“Further another application dated 5.2.2016 has been submitted to renew the permit of KRD 8253 State Carriage vehicle from 22.8.2011 to 21.8.2016 and third application to renew from 21.8.2016 also submitted on 1.8.2016. Verified the files of this Stage Carriage permit and found the vehicle elapsed 15 years from its registration on 12.8.1997 and all application for renewal submitted after the vehicle registration validity to operate as stage carriage permit cannot be entertained. Sri. Gireeshkumar reported on 29.1.2014 that the vehicle KRD 8253 has been scrapped since the vehicle completed 15 years and applied for cancellation of Registration certificate. Moreover the State Carriage KRD 8253 stands registered in the name of Smt. Usha Murali and the transfer of ownership granted by RTA on 29.92003 never come into force since the transferee did not turn to submit the current records within the stipulated period. Hence the renewal of permit on the City route Beypore – Bhatt Road via City by Sri. Gireesh in respect of KRD 8253 has been rejected.”

¶104

WP(C) Nos.18051&18517/2020

¶105

: 19 :

¶106

It has to be noted that the Tribunal in Ext.P1 order in MVAA No.264/2009 had considered the issue and held as follows:-

¶107

“The other ground made mention in the impugned order relating to the non-filing of replacement application within time and arrears of tax in respect of the outgoing vehicle are not seen mentioned in the earlier order of the 1^st respondent dated 25.04.2007. This being the position, those grounds now stated in the impugned order cannot be raised by the 1^st respondent for the rejection of the request for renewal of permit. It follows that the impugned order is vitiated and hence liable to the interfered with.

¶108

To the result, this appeal is allowed and setting aside the impugned order, the 1^st respondent is directed to grant the renewal of permit in respect of the new vehicle offered by the petitioner, if he makes available the current records of that vehicle. The 1^st respondent is also directed to grant the renewal within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.”

¶109

The said Ext.P1 was taken note of by this Court in

¶110

W.P.(C) No.9902/2010, and as per Ext.P3 judgment, this Court had held that there is no justification for denial of transfer of permit ordered as early as in the year 2003. In view of Ext.P3 judgment of this Court, the RTA could not have rejected the application for the reasons contained in Ext.P7 order. The Tribunal in Ext.P10 judgment therefore found that

¶111

WP(C) Nos.18051&18517/2020

¶112

: 20 :

¶113

the impugned order dated 15.11.2016 of the RTA rejecting the application for renewal of permit is not sustainable.

¶114

Now, let us consider the legality of Ext.P10

¶115

judgment of the Tribunal and sustainability of the arguments mounted against the said judgment.

¶116

One argument is that statutory application for renewal of permit can be made only by a permit holder. Section 81 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for duration and renewal of permits. Sub-section (4) of Section 81 explains as to when an RTA/STA may reject an application for renewal of permit. Section 81 reads as follows:-

¶117

“ 81 Duration and renewal of permits— (1) A permit other than a temporary permit issued under section 87 or a special permit issued under sub-section (8) of section 88 shall be effective [from the date of issuance or renewal thereof] for a period of five years:

¶118

Provided that where the permit is countersigned under sub-section (1) of section 88, such countersignature shall remain effective without renewal for such period so as to synchronise with the validity of the primary permit.

¶119

(2) A permit may be renewed on an application made not less than fifteen days before the date of its expiry.

¶120

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (2), the Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority as the case may be, entertain an application for the renewal of a permit

¶121

WP(C) Nos.18051&18517/2020

¶122

: 21 :

¶123

after the last date specified in that sub-section if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by good and sufficient cause from making an application within the time specified.

¶124

(4) The Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority, as the case may be, may reject an application for the renewal of a permit on one or more of the following grounds, namely:—

¶125

(a) the financial condition of the applicant as evidenced by insolvency, or decrees for payment of debts remaining unsatisfied for a period of thirty days, prior to the date of consideration of the application;

¶126

(b)the applicant had been punished twice or more for any of the following offences within twelve months reckoned from fifteen days prior to the date of consideration of the application committed as a result of the operation of a stage carriage service by the applicant, namely:—

¶127

(i) plying any vehicle—

¶128

(1) without payment of tax due on such vehicle;

¶129

(2) without payment of tax during the grace period allowed for payment of such tax and then stop the plying of such vehicle;

¶130

(3) on any unauthorised route;

¶131

(ii) making unauthorised trips:

¶132

Provided that in computing the number of punishments for the purpose of clause (b), any punishment stayed by the order of an appellate authority shall not be taken into account:

¶133

Provided further that no application under this sub-section shall be rejected unless an opportunity of being heard is given to the applicant.

¶134

(5) Where a permit has been renewed under this section after the expiry of the period thereof, such renewal shall have effect from the date of such expiry irrespective of whether or not a temporary permit has been granted under clause (d) of section 87, and where a temporary permit has been granted, the fee paid in respect of such temporary permit shall be refunded.”

¶135

WP(C) Nos.18051&18517/2020

¶136

: 22 :

¶137

Section 81 does not state that an application for renewal of permit has to be filed by a permit holder himself, as rightly held by the Tribunal in Ext.P10 judgment.

¶138

The further argument is that by virtue of Rule 172 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, an application for renewal permit can only be made by a permit holder. Rule 172 reads as follows:-

¶139

‐ “ 172. Renewal of permits (1) Every application for the renewal of a permit shall be made to the Transport Authority which issued the permit.

¶140

(2) Application for renewal of permit shall be in Form "PRA" and shall be accompanied by the permit where the motor vehicle is subject to a hire purchase, lease or hypothecation agreement, the certificate or communication, or as the case may be, the ‐ declaration referred to in sub section (8) of Section 51 of the Act.

¶141

‐ (3) Production of permit . (a) The Transport Authority sanctioning an application for renewal or a permit shall call upon the permit holder to produce the Registration Certificate of the vehicle and endorse the renewal in the permit and return them to the holder. The Transport Authority may revoke its sanction of the application for renewal if the permit holder fails to produce the documents aforesaid within one month from the date of despatch of the order requiring the production of the records:

¶142

Provided that the Transport Authority may, if satisfied on an application made to it in writing by the permit holder within the period of one month aforesaid that there are sufficient grounds, grant an extension or

¶143

WP(C) Nos.18051&18517/2020

¶144

: 23 :

¶145

extensions of time not exceeding four months in the aggregate for the production of the records.

¶146

(b) The Transport Authority may delegate the powers conferred on it by clause (a) to its Secretary in cases where the Secretary has sanctioned the application for renewal of the permit.”

¶147

Sub Rule (3) provides that the RTA/STA shall call upon the permit holder to produce the Registration Certificate of the vehicle, endorse the renewal in the permit and return them to the holder.

¶148

In the light of Section 81, the argument that Rule 172 implies that an application for renewal of permit can be made only by the permit holder, is a debatable proposition. Even assuming so, the case of the petitioner stands on a different footing. In the petitioner's case, there is a decision to grant permit to the petitioner by transfer. What is lacking is only an endorsement of transfer. Therefore, the petitioner in whose favour the permit is transferred, cannot be said to be disentitled to apply for renewal of permit.

¶149

The argument of the counsel for the additional 6^th respondent is that in view of Rule 144(a) of the Kerala Motor

¶150

WP(C) Nos.18051&18517/2020

¶151

: 24 :

¶152

Vehicles Rules, 1989 and the Form P.St prescribed thereunder, it has to be held that only a permit holder can apply for renewal of permit. In this regard, it is to be noted that the transfer of permit was allowed and effected on 29.09.2003 and the formality remaining was only of an endorsement by the RTA. The application for renewal of permit was made by the petitioner in time. The proceedings were pending. In the circumstances of the case, the Form P.St to the Rules, 1989 cannot be relied on for the purpose of denying a statutory right to the petitioners.

¶153

The arguments of the additional 2^nd respondent based on Rule 20 of the Kerala State Transport Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1988 are also not sustainable in the facts of the case. Rule 20 provides that the Tribunal shall not assume the original jurisdiction of the STAT or RTA while passing final orders under Sections 64 and 64A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 provides that the decision given by the Tribunal in an appeal shall be final. Section 64A dealing with the revisional powers of the Tribunal

¶154

WP(C) Nos.18051&18517/2020

¶155

: 25 :

¶156

also provides that orders passed by the Tribunal exercising Section 64A shall be final. It is trite law that an appellate court must have all the powers of original authority. Therefore, an appellate Tribunal can pass all orders which the original authority can pass. In the judgment in Can Transports v. Saidalavi [2005 (3) KLT 679], this Court held that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal can direct the RTAs to grant permits. In S.V.Sivaswami Servai v. Hafez Motor Transport [(1990) 4 SCC 459] , the Apex Court also held that STAT would be justified in interfering with RTA's order and either remanding the order to RTA or considering the same itself on merits. In view of the said judgments, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has reserved the power of the RTA in passing Ext.P10 order.

¶157

The learned counsel for the additional 2^nd respondent relied on the judgment of this Court in Rashinlal's Case (supra) and Usman's Case (supra) to contend that applications for renewal of permit and replacement cannot be considered simultaneously. The said proposition has become

¶158

WP(C) Nos.18051&18517/2020

¶159

: 26 :

¶160

final in view of Ext.P5 judgment of this Court which was upheld in Ext.P6 judgment by a Division Bench of this Court. In Abdul Wahab K.S. v. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority [2015 (4) KLT 268] , this Court held that in the matter of renewal of permits, a second application filed after lapse of five years from the expiry of permit, can only be treated as yet another application for renewal of permit and that there is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to tack one second application with the first application for renewal of permit wherein final orders were not passed within a period of five years. The learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent, relying on the said judgment, contended that an applicant looses the benefit for renewal when once the period of five years lapses after the expiry of the regular permit and the benefit of Section 87(1)(d) of the Act cannot be called in aid.

¶161

This Court is of the view that the said judgment cannot be of any aid to the 2^nd respondent since the application for renewal of permit was preferred by the petitioner during the currency of the period and the petitioner

¶162

WP(C) Nos.18051&18517/2020

¶163

: 27 :

¶164

was litigating in the matter ever since continuously. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal had passed orders to grant renewal of permit to the petitioner, which orders were not heeded to by the RTA. It was only after Ext.P3 judgment of this Court that the RTA granted renewal of permit to the petitioner. The said renewal was under challenge by the additional 2^nd respondent. This Court by Ext.P5 set aside the order for the sole reason that simultaneous consideration of renewal application and replacement application, was not justified. Ultimately, the STAT directed the RTA to grant permit to the petitioner, as per Ext.P10.

¶165

In the circumstances, this Court do not find any illegality or impropriety in Ext.P10 judgment (Ext.P3 impugned judgment in W.P.(C) No.18517/2020).

¶166

As regards the application for Temporary Permit filed by the petitioner, since the application for renewal of permit is pending consideration, the petitioner should be held to be eligible for Temporary Permit. It is to be noted that ever since the permit was transferred to the petitioner in the year

¶167

WP(C) Nos.18051&18517/2020 : 28 :

¶168

2003, the petitioner was operating the stage carriage on the basis of Temporary Permits issued to him. A temporary permit was, however, declined to the petitioner subsequently. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the petitioner is entitled to get Temporary Permit pending consideration of the application for regular permit pursuant to Ext.P10 judgment.

¶169

In the circumstances, W.P.(C) No.18051/2020 is allowed and the 1^st respondent is directed to issue Temporary Permit to the petitioner forthwith. For the reasons stated hereinabove, W.P.(C) No.18517/2020 is dismissed.

¶170

Sd/- N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

¶171

aks/07.01.2021

¶172

WP(C) Nos.18051&18517/2020

¶173

: 29 :

¶174

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18051/2020

¶175

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶176

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF 264/2009 PASSED DATED 09.07.2009	THE BY .	JUDGMENT IN MVAA THE STAT, ERNAKULAM
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF 502/2009 PASSED DATED 15.01.2010	THE BY .	JUDGMENT IN MVAA THE STAT, ERNAKULAM
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF 9902/2010 DATED THIS HON'BLE COU	THE 12 RT.	JUDGMENT IN WPC .03.2015 PASSED BY
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF 16.02.2016 ISS TRANSPORT AUTHOR	THE UED ITY	PROCEEDINGS DATED BY THE REGIONAL , KOZHIKODE.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF 10450/2016 DATE THIS HON'BLE COU	THE D 2 RT.	JUDGMENT IN WPC 8.03.2016 PASSED BY
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF NO.1092/2016 DA BY THIS HON'BLE	THE TED COU	JUDGMENT IN WA 21.06.2016 PASSED RT.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF 15.11.2016 ISS TRANSPORT AUTHOR	THE UED ITY	PROCEEDINGS DATED BY THE REGIONAL , KOZHIKODE.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF 188/2016 PASSED DATED 14.06.2017	THE BY .	JUDGMENT IN MVAA THE STAT, ERNAKULAM
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY O OP(C)NO.2316/201 PASSED BY THIS H	F 7 ON'	THE JUDGMENT IN DATED 10/04/2018 BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF 188/2016 PASSED DATED 16.07.2020	THE BY .	JUDGMENT IN MVAA THE STAT, ERNAKULAM

¶177

WP(C) Nos.18051&18517/2020

¶178

: 30 :

¶179

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REPLACEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY PERMIT ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT.

¶180

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶181

EXHIBIT R2(a): TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WP(C)NO.18517 DATED 09/09/2020.

¶182

WP(C) No.18051&18517/2020

¶183

:31:

¶184

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18517/2020

¶185

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶186

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF PETITIONER.	THE PERMIT OF THE
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER DATED	TIMING ISSUED TO THE NIL.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE 188/2016 DATED 16	JUDGMENT IN MVAA NO. -07-2020
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE 11-2016.	PROCEEDINGS DATED 15-
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE 188/2016 DATED EXHIBITS	APPEAL IN MVAA NO. 17-12-2016 WITHOUT
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE MVAA NO.188/2016	COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN DATED 5-4-2019
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE EXTRACT OF T MVAA NO.188/2016	HE ARGUMENTS NOTE IN DATED 6-07-2020
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF TH 25-03-2017.	E NOTIFICATION DATED
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE BEYPORE-PUTHIYAPP	PERMIT ON THE ROUTE A DATED 27.8.2020.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S SERV	TIMING ISSUED TO THE ICE.
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF T VEHICLE KL-11 AA	HE RC BOOK OF THE 9171.
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY OF WPC.NO.13178/2005	THE JUDGMENT IN DATED 03/08/2005.
EXHIBIT P13	TRUE COPY OF THE 2015[1]KLT 248.	DECISION REPORTED IN

¶187

WP(C) No.18051&18517/2020

¶188

:32:

¶189

EXHIBIT P14	TRUE COPY OF OPC.NO.2316/2017	THE JUDGMENT IN DATED 10/04/2018.
EXHIBIT P15	TRUE COPY OF THE AIR 1997 SC 412.	DECISION REPORTED IN
EXHIBIT P16	TRUE COPY OF THE 2015[4]KLT 25.	DECISION REPORTED IN
EXHIBIT P17	TRUE COPY OF THE 2015[4]KLT 268.	DECISION REPORTED IN
EXHIBIT P18	TRUE COPY OF THE 2015[4]KLT 590.	DECISION REPORTED IN
EXHIBIT P19	TRUE COPY OF WPC.NO.7548/2016	THE JUDGMENT IN DATED 15/07/2016
EXHIBIT P20	TRUE COPY OF WPC.NO.10450/2016	THE JUDGMENT IN DATED 28/03/2016
EXHIBIT P21	TRUE COPY OF WA.NO.1092/2016 D	THE JUDGMENT IN ATED 21/06/2016.

¶190

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶191

EXHIBIT	R4(1) A TRUE	COPY OF THE	RELEVANT PORT	ION
	AGENDA	DT.10/07/2019,	CONSIDERING	THE
	APPLICA	TION FOR	TRANSFER	OF
	PETITIO	NERS PERMIT TO	ANOTHER PARTY	.
EXHIBIT	R4(2) A TRUE	COPY OF THE	RELEVANT PORT	ION
	DECISIO	N DT.10/7/201	9, ALLOWING	THE
	TRANSFE WHICH W BEFORE	R OF PERMIT OF AS SUPPRESSED THIS HON.COURT	THE PETITION BY THE PETITIO .	ER, NER
EXHIBIT	R4(3) A TRU	E COPY OF	THE REGISTRAT	ION
	PARTICU	LARS OF THE K	L.11.AD 3222,	SO
	CALLED	PETITIONER VEH	ICLE IN WP(c)
EXHIBIT	R4(4) A TRU	E COPY OF	THE JUDGM	ENT
	WP(C)15 WRIT AP	666/19 DT.3/7 PEAL 6/2017	/2019, FOLLOW	ING
EXHIBIT	R4(5) A TRUE THE 4TH	COPY OF THE A RESPONDENT IN	FFIDAVIT FILED WA 1092/2016	BY

¶192

WP(C) No.18051&18517/2020

¶193

:33:

¶194

EXHIBIT R3(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE DECISION OF THE RTA, KOZHIKODE DATED 10.07.2019
EXHIBIT R3(B)	TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO SRI.SADIKKALI
EXHIBIT R3(C)	TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 12.3.2015
	IN WP(C)No.9902 OF 2010 RENDERED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT R3(D)	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED
	16.2.2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R3(E)	TRUE COPY OF WPC No.10450/16 FILED BY
	THE PETITIONER BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT R3(F)	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.3.2016 IN WP(C)10450/16 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT R3(G) EXHIBIT R3(H)	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A No.1092 OF 2016 FOR THIS HON'COURT. TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDING DATED 15.11.2016 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R3(I)	TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN MVAA NO.188 OF 2016 OF THE ORDER DATED 14.06.2017.
EXHIBIT R3(J) EXHIBIT R3(K)	TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN OP(C)No.2316 OF 2017 OF THE ORDER DATED 10.04.2018 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 20.08.2007 IN W.P(c) No.18779/2007 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT R6(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT ON THE ROUTE BEYPORE-PUTHIYAPPA DATED 15.11.2019
EXHIBIT R6(B)	TRUE COPY OF THE RC BOOK OF THE VEHICLE KL-11AD 3222

¶195

P.Mohanan v. the Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Mohanan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bindu.B Vs State of Kerala

T.a.Abdulla Vs the Special Tahasildar ( R R)

Col.Augustine Mangatteparambil (Retd) Vs the Unit Head

P.Girish Kumar Vs the Secretary, the Regional Transport Authority

Pankaja Kasthuri Herbals India Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Edison Joy, Vs Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company Ltd.