Dismissed

The Regional Transport Authority, v. K.J.Thankamma

Kerala HC16 Sept 2022OP(C)/999/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed an original petition filed by the Regional Transport Authority challenging the State Transport Appellate Tribunal order. The Court held that the Appellate Authority correctly condoned the 33-day delay due to the applicant's indisposed condition of spondylitis.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of the original petition seeking to quash the Appellate Tribunal order without granting order or decree.

The Regional Transport Authority, Vs K.J.Thankamma — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

OP(C) No.999 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 25TH BHADRA, 1944

¶7

OP(C) NO. 999 OF 2019

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT MVAA 279/2018 OF THE STATE
TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM

¶9

PETITIONER/S:

¶10

1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
 ERNAKULAM.

¶11

2.THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
 ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY ADV SYLAJA,GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶13

RESPONDENT/S:

¶14

K.J.THANKAMMA,
HOUSE NO.812,WARD NO.32,POLLAYIL HOUSE,
PALARIVATTOM,KOCHI-682025.
BY ADV SRI.PRASAD CHANDRAN

¶15

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

OP(C) No.999 of 2019

C.S.DIAS, J.

======================

¶20

OP(C) No.999 of 2019

¶21

Dated this the 16^h day of September, 2022

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Assailing the judgment in M.V.A.A. No.279/2018 of

¶24

the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam, the Regional Transport Authority and its Secretary have filed the original petition. The respondent was the appellant in the appeal.

¶25

The facts in brief, relevant for the determination of the original petition, are: the petitioners were the respondents in the above appeal which was filed by the respondent, challenging the order passed by the first petitioner rejecting the respondent’s application for renewal of the regular permit of a stage carriage bearing No.KL 07/BF 3807. The period of the permit had expired on 9.2.2018. The application for renewal was filed with a delay of 33 days. The application to condone the delay was rejected by the first petitioner on the ground that the cause stated was insufficient and the vehicle had a bad

¶26

¶27

OP(C) No.999 of 2019

¶28

service history. Aggrieved by Ext P1 proceeding, the respondent preferred Ext P2 appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority straightaway condoned the delay in filing the application for renewal of regular permit, by the impugned Ext.P3 judgment, and directed the first petitioner to reconsider the application on merits. The finding of the Appellate Authority is patently wrong and unsustainable in law. Ext.P3 judgment is erroneous and opposed the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, the original petition.

¶29

Heard; the learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners and Shri. Prasad Chandran, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶30

The point is whether there is any illegality in Ext.P3 judgment passed by the Appellate Authority.

¶31

The respondent being aggrieved by Ext P1 proceedings passed by the first petitioner, preferred the appeal, under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, before the Appellate Authority. The respondent had contended that she was precluded from filing the

¶32

¶33

OP(C) No.999 of 2019

¶34

application to renew the permit as she was indisposed for the period from 1.02.2018 to 31.03.2018. She had produced a medical certificate to substantiate that she was suffering from spondylitis and was advised bed rest from 01.02.2018 to 31.03.2018. The first petitioner rejected the application to condone the delay holding that the reason stated was insufficient to condone the delay of 33 days.

¶35

The Appellate Authority, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Naubath Ram Sharma Vs. Additional District Judge-II, Muradabad (AIR 1987 SC 1352), set aside the order and allowed the appeal by directing the first petitioner to reconsider the application for renewal on its merits.

¶36

I have re-considered the pleadings and materials on record. The respondent had pleaded and proved that she was indisposed due to spondylitis from 1.2.2018 to 31.3.2018. The first petitioner held that the reason stated in the application to condone the delay of 33 days

¶37

¶38

OP(C) No.999 of 2019

¶39

was insufficient, which was turned down by the Appellate Authority.

¶40

It is fairly well-settled an application to condone the delay have to be liberally considered. In Naubath Ram Sharma (supra), it is held that it is always desirable that a case be decided on its merits rather than on technicalities.

¶41

The respondent is a 68 year old lady and was undisputedly laid up. I am satisfied that the reasons stated in the application to condone the delay are sufficient. I do not find any error or illegality in Ext.P3 judgment warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The original petition is nothing but an unwarranted litigation by the State.

¶42

The original petition fails and is hence dismissed.

sd/-

sks/16.9.2022

C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

OP(C) No.999 of 2019

APPENDIX OF OP(C) 999/2019

¶49

`PETITIO`	`NER EXHI`	`BITS`
`EXHIBIT`	`P1`	`TRUE COPY OF` `PETITIONER D`	`THE` `ATED`	`PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST` `02.08.2018.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P2`	`TRUE COPY OF` `MVAA.NO.279/`	`THE` `2018.`	`APPEAL MEMORANDUM IN`
`EXHIBIT`	`P3`	`TRUE COPY OF` `TRANSPORT AP`	`THE` `PELLA`	`JUDGMENT OF THE STATE` `TE TRIBUNAL.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P4`	`TRUE COPY OF` `DATED 17.03.` `DR.JYOTHILEK`	`THE` `2018` `SHMI.`	`MEDICAL CERTIFICATE` `ISSUED BY ONE` `J.S,DHMS.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P5`	`TRUE COPY OF` `THE DELAY IN` `APPLICATION` `RESPONDENT/A`	`THE` `FILI` `SUBMI` `PPELL`	`REQUEST FOR CONDONING` `NG THE RENEWAL` `TTED BY THE` `ANT.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P6`	`TRUE COPY OF` `26.02.18 FOR` `ADVERTISEMEN` `CARRIAGE KL`	`THE` `PERM` `T IN` `07 BB`	`APPLICATION DATED` `ITING ELECTRONIC` `HER ANOTHER STAGE` `5065.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P7`	`TRUE COPY OF` `RESPONDENT H` `DATED 19.02.`	`THE` `EREIN` `2018.`	`OTHER COMMUNICATION FROM` `TO THE 2ND PETITIONER`
`EXHIBIT`	`P8`	`TRUE COPY OF` `RESPONDENT H` `DATED 05.03.`	`THE` `EREIN` `2018.`	`OTHER COMMUNICATION FROM` `TO THE 2ND PETITIONER`
`EXHIBIT`	`P9`	`TRUE COPY OF`	`CHEC`	`K REPORT DATED 15.03.19.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P10`	`TRUE COPY OF` `19.03.19.`	`CHEC`	`K REPORT & MAHAZAR DATED`
`EXHIBIT` `EXHIBIT`	`P11` `P12`	`TRUE COPY OF` `02.02.19.` `TRUE COPY OF`	`THE` `CHEC`	`CHECK REPORT DATED` `K REPORT DATED 19.01.19.`

The Regional Transport Authority, v. K.J.Thankamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Regional Transport Authority, v. K.J.Thankamma

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

Biju Joseph Vs Jain Joseph

Neo Media School LLP Vs Neo Media School

Lalitha S Vs Anoop Krishnan

Jasna , Vs Muhammed Shafi

Abins K.B Vs Shaiba Abins

Andrews Vs Parish Chits (P) Ltd.