Dismissed

K.Sreeraman, v. Jayanand C.M .

Kerala HC22 Dec 2022WA/15/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed rival writ appeals challenging a Single Judge's order that remitted a permit renewal matter to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The bench found no jurisdictional error to interfere, leaving factual and legal issues about the vehicle lease and financial clearances for the Tribunal's adjudication. The appeals consequently failed and were dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeals filed by the 4th respondent/petitioner were dismissed. The Single Judge's judgment directing the Statutory Tribunal to reconsider the matter is upheld.

K.Sreeraman, Vs Jayanand C.M . — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

W.A Nos.15 & 19 of 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶6

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶8

THURSDAY, THE 22^ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 1ST POUSHA, 1944

¶9

WA NO. 15 OF 2022

¶10

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 27284/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶11

APPELLANT/4TH RESPONDENT:

¶12

K.SREERAMAN, S/O.KRISHNA IYER,KIZHAKKE MADOM, EAST NADA,OORAKKOM P.O.,THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680562 BY ADV P.DEEPAK

¶13

RESPONDENTS/WRIT PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1 JAYANAND C.M ., 51 YEARS,S/O.MADHAVAN, CHIRAKKAL HOUSE,JAYESH NIVAS,PERUMBILLISSERY P.O., THRISSUR-680651.

¶15

2 THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX,ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-682011.

¶16

3 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR,REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE,CIVIL STATION, THRISSUR-680 003.

¶17

4 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,THRISSUR, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE,CIVIL STATION,THRISSUR-680003.

¶18

5 THE TRICHUR DISTRICT MOTOR TRANSPORT OWNERS' COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, MACHINGAL LANE,THRISSUR-680001.

¶19

6 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,HEAD OFFICE, FORT P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695034. BY ADV SRI.I.DINESH MENON FOR R1 SRI.K.P.HARISH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶20

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.12.2022, ALONG WITH

¶21

WA.19/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

W.A Nos.15 & 19 of 2022

¶23

¶24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶25

PRESENT

¶26

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶27

¶28

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶29

THURSDAY, THE 22^ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 1ST POUSHA, 1944

¶30

WA NO. 19 OF 2022

¶31

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 26869/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶32

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶33

K. SREERAMAN, S/O.KRISHNA IYER,KIZHAKKE MADOM, EAST NADA,OORAKKOM P.O., THRISSUR,PIN-680 562. BY ADV P.DEEPAK

¶34

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶35

1 REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE,CIVIL STATION,AYYANTHOLE,THRISSUR-680003.

¶36

2 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,THRISSUR, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE,CIVIL STATION,AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-680003.

¶37

3 TRICHUR DISTRICT MOTOR TRANSPORT OWNERS' COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,MACHINGAL LANE, THRISSUR-680 001. 4 JAYANANAD C.M., 51 YEARS,S/O.MADHAVAN,CHIRAKKAL HOUSE,JAYESH NIVAS, PERUMBILLISSERY P[.O.,THRISSUR-680651. BY ADVS.

¶38

SRI.I.DINESH MENON FOR R4 SRI.K.P.HARISH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 & R2 SRI.M.JITHESH MENON FOR R3

¶39

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.12.2022, ALONG WITH WA.15/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶40

W.A Nos.15 & 19 of 2022

¶41

¶42

JUDGMENT

¶43

Dated this the 22^nd day of December, 2022

¶44

SHAJI P.CHALY,J

¶45

Captioned writ appeals are filed by the 4^th respondent/petitioner in W.P.© Nos.27284 of 2021 and 26869 of 2021 respectively, challenging the common judgement of a learned Single Judge dated 9.12.2021, whereby the learned Single Judge quashed the judgement of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (for short, “STAT”) in MVAA No.17/2016 dated 16^th February 2018; directed the STAT to re-hear the appeals with notice to the parties and pass fresh orders in accordance with law; and the 2^nd respondent - the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur, to consider an application for temporary permit submitted by the appellant treating it as one under section 87(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, hereinafter called, “the Act, 1988”, and pass orders within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgement. Further, the parties were directed to appear before the STAT on 21.12.2021. It is thus challenging the legality and correctness of the judgement of the learned Single Judge; the appeals are preferred.

¶46

The appellant and the party respondents in the appeals are rival stage carriage operators. The appellant/petitioner in W.A No.19 of 2022 is the permit holder, which is the issue that is to be sorted out in the appeals. The appellant

¶47

W.A Nos.15 & 19 of 2022

¶48

¶49

was issued with a permit on 23.5.2008 in respect of a vehicle bearing No.KL-08N-9394 and the validity of the same was from 26.12.2003 to 25.12.2008. Admittedly, the said vehicle was a leased one. Before the expiry of Exhibit P1 permit, on 18.11.2008, appellant filed an application for renewal of permit but the application was apparently lying dormant. However, before expiry of the 5 year period, that is to say, the period of validity of a permit in terms of section 81 of the Act, 1988, the appellant filed an application dated 30.11.2013 seeking renewal of the permit. In the meanwhile, the lease in respect of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-08 N 9394 was terminated and the vehicle was surrendered to the lessor. Anyhow, the entry made in the permit concerning the vehicle number continued.

¶50

Be that as it may, the appellant obtained a new vehicle and was operating on the basis of temporary permit, apparently, pending adjudication of the application submitted by the appellant. Whatever that be, on 3.10.2015, the Regional Transport Authority, as per a decision bearing item No.28 dated 3.10.2015, rejected the application under section 84(1)(a) of the Act, 1988. The reason assigned in the said decision produced as Exhibit P3 in W.P.© No.26869 of 2021 is that; without clearing the hypothecation, the permit holder has again applied for the renewal of permit on 30.11.2013 for the continuous renewal of permit; the matter was enquired by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority,

¶51

W.A Nos.15 & 19 of 2022

¶52

¶53

who found that there is an amount of Rs.2,86,352/- due to the financier and the financier is not ready to issue NOC without clearing the dues; that even after the lapse of 7 years, the permit holder could not clear the defaulted amount to the hypothecated company; and since the payment of debts to the hypothecated company is remaining unsatisfied for a period of more than 7 years, the permit holder is not economically fit to conduct the service. The said order of rejection was challenged by the appellant before the STAT in MVAA No.17/2016, and the Tribunal, as per a judgement dated 16.2.2018, set aside the order of rejection and directed the appellant to file fresh application for renewal of permit by incorporating the subsequent developments and consequently, the Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur was directed to consider the application in accordance with law, after hearing both sides, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the fresh application for renewal.

¶54

The contention advanced by the party respondents and the Motor Vehicle Authority is that the fresh application in the manner as directed by the Tribunal in the judgement was not filed by the appellant; which appears to be an admitted fact. Anyhow, before the expiry of the 5 year period from the date of submission of the application in the year 2013, the appellant again submitted an application dated 24.11.2018 seeking renewal of permit. It seems along with an application for temporary permit, an application for replacement of vehicle was filed, which are

¶55

W.A Nos.15 & 19 of 2022

¶56

¶57

produced as Exhibit P11 & Exhibit P13 in W.P.© No.26869 of 2021. It was seeking direction to the Regional Transport Authority and the Secretary to consider the said applications, W.P.© No.26869/2021 was filed.

¶58

Anyhow, during the pendency of the said application, the party respondents/rival operators challenged the judgement of the Tribunal in MVAA No.17/2016 dated 16.2.2018 by filing W.P.© No.27284 basically contending that the STAT has not considered the legal parameters in regard to the renewal of permit and the grant of temporary permit. Both the writ petitions were heard together and the learned Single Judge has entered into the following findings to issue the directions as stated above:

¶59

“7. Admittedly Ext.P1 permit was in respect of a leased vehicle. Pending the application for renewal submitted on 18.11.2008, the lease was terminated and the vehicle was surrendered to the lessor. Does the same have any significance on the renewal, is the question to be looked into. The permit holder not being the registered owner of the vehicle, would Section 51(6) apply, is a matter for consideration. Can the finding of the RTA regarding the financial incapacity of the permit holder, for the reason that the lessor failed to satisfy the dues of the financier, be sustained. Does the non replacement of vehicle prior to the surrender of the vehicle and before the expiry of the permit has any impact, is also a matter for consideration. These aspects have not been looked into/considered by the Tribunal while passing Ext.P8 order. Findings on the above have significance in concluding whether the permit holder is entitled for renewal of permit or not. It is only proper

¶60

W.A Nos.15 & 19 of 2022

¶61

¶62

that the Tribunal reconsiders the matter and passes fresh orders with due notice to the parties.

¶63

As regards the request of the permit holder for a direction for consideration of his temporary permit application, though the learned counsel for the permit holder would contend that the permit holder was, without any break, operating on the route on temporary permits issued under Section 87(1)(d) as per the orders of the Tribunal, I am of the opinion that the application for temporary permit is not liable to be considered under 87(1)(d) for the simple reason that, as of now, the application for renewal of permit stands rejected. 87(1) (d) applies only for the grant of temporary permit pending an application for renewal of permit.”

¶64

The paramount contention advanced by the appellant in the appeals is that the learned Single Judge ought to have found that the judgement of the Tribunal in MVAA No.17 of 2016 rendered as early as 16.2.2018 had attained statutory finality with all parties acquiesced with the same. It is further contended that the learned Single Judge has clearly erred in not addressing the cardinal issue touching upon the root of the matter viz., the locus standi of the party respondent viz., Jayanand C.M./rival operator to impugn the judgement of the Tribunal rendered even before he had become a stage carriage operator and more particularly, when the party respondent No.3 viz., theThrissur District Motor Transport Owners' Co-operative Society, at whose instance the proceedings had been brought before the Tribunal, had acquiesced with the said judgement. It is further pointed out that the learned Single Judge was not right in issuing the

¶65

W.A Nos.15 & 19 of 2022

¶66

¶67

directions to consider Exhibit P11 application for temporary permit under section 87(1)(c) of the Act, 1988 since the application submitted by the appellant under section 87(1)(d) of the Act, 1988 is pending adjudication of the application for regular permit.

¶68

The contention advanced by the rival operator viz., Jayanand.C.M. is that he came to know about the judgement of the Tribunal in MVAA No.17/2016 as well as the successive issuance of temporary permit belatedly, and it is on submission of

¶69

his objection and production of the judgement of the Tribunal, the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority stopped issuance of temporary permit. It was further pointed out that the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority gave a communication dated 17.11.2021, stating that he had issued the temporary permit thinking that MVAA No.17 of 2016 was pending and thereby, issued the temporary permit till the disposal of the appeal. It is further submitted that such a communication was issued by the Secretary Regional Transport Authority when he had brought to his notice the disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal in 2018, during November, 2021. Therefore, according to the rival operators, the appellant was operating the vehicle on the basis of a temporary permit issued in succession for the last more than 11

¶70

years suppressing the said material aspect, which is against the settled legal position rendered by this Court in its various judgments. It is further submitted that issuance of successive temporary permits is not legally sustainable.

¶71

W.A Nos.15 & 19 of 2022

¶72

¶73

That apart it is contended that the issuance of temporary permit under section 87(1)(d) of the Act, 1988 cannot be sustained for two reasons; (1) that the issuance of temporary permit under section 87(1)(d) of the Act, 1988 sought for by the writ petitioner on the basis of Exhibit P11 application for temporary permit, which by itself, according to the rival operators, an application for temporary permit without an application for regular permit cannot be entertained under section 87(1) (d) of the Act, 1988; 2) that since the permit of the appellant expired way back in the year 2008 and the same has not been renewed so far, the application for temporary permit cannot be considered under section 87(1)(d) of the Act, 1988. It is also pointed out that the renewal application submitted on 18.11.2008 has already been rejected and the present renewal application is pending from 25/12/2018 to 25/12/2023. Therefore, according to the rival operators, if that be the case, without the renewal of the anterior period being granted, the renewal for subsequent period can never be maintainable. That apart, it is contended that the appellant cannot wriggle out of the legal obligation to produce the NOC from the financier as provided under rule 172 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989; and without a NOC from the financier, none can say there is a valid renewal application.

¶74

The sum and substance of the contention is that there is no properly constituted action initiated by the appellant in order to have entertained the writ petition of the appellant for a direction to consider Exhibit P11 application for

¶75

W.A Nos.15 & 19 of 2022

¶76

¶77

temporary permit submitted under section 87(1)(d) of the Act, 1988, and Exhibit P13 application for replacement of the vehicle. Various documents were produced by the appellant along with the writ petition.

¶78

The Regional Transport officer has filed a detailed statement in the appeal supporting the action initiated by the Motor Vehicles Authority and we are of the view that the relevant portion of the said statement filed in the writ appeal is recorded for proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case:

¶79

“4. It is submitted that the appellant was conducting the service of Stage Carriage KL 08 C 459 with permit No 8/20/1984, which was valid up to 25/12/2003. The Renewal application was submitted on 09.12.2003 within the specified time, which was processed and issued on 05.11.2005 and the permit was valid up to 25.12.2008. But KL-08C 0459 defaulted with effect from 28.12.2007 as the permit holder (appellant) failed to conduct service during this period since the vehicle was not road worthy and registered owner of KL 08 N 9394 was conducting service with the strength of Substituted Temporary Permit in place of KL 08 C 0459. The Permit holder applied for replacement of vehicle on 19.03.2008 taking possession of same vehicle KL. 08 N 9394 under lease agreement for three years. The Replacement was granted later as per STAT order in MVAA No 190/2008 but the current records including NOC from the financier has not been produced. As per section 51(9 (a)(i) of MV act and Rule 174(4) of KMV Rules NOC from the financier and current Records are required. Therefore, the replacement of vehicle was not effected. The application for renewal of permit was submitted on 20.11.2008 without effecting the replacement of the vehicle prior to the expiry of the permit. Hence the permit became invalid as there was no suitable vehicle attached to the permit.

¶80

W.A Nos.15 & 19 of 2022

¶81

¶82

It is submitted that on 16.04 2010 permit holder appeared before Secretary RTA and stated that KL 08 N 9394 is under form G and he is not in a position to put the vehicle back on road. In the meanwhile, as per order dated in MVAA No. 163/2010, the Hon'ble STAT directed to grant temporary permit to the possessor Sri.Sreeraman (appellant) for four months U/s 87 (1) (d) of MV Act pending consideration of his application for renewal of permit, provided that the vacancy of the expired permit survives and the records of the vehicle of the appellant are current. The Financier "Thrissur District Motor Transport Owners Cooperative Society Ltd No. 856 then filed objection against the renewal of the regular permit. Hence an enquiry was conducted through the circle officer, and he reported that, an amount of Rs.2,86,352/- is due from the registered owner to the financier and the financier had reported that NOC will be issued only on the settlement of above dues.

¶83

It is pertinent to note that the appellant has applied for temporary permit in respect of KL 08 L 7092 which was registered in his name, it seems suspicious that he has not applied for replacement of vehicle even after procuring a vehicle in his name. He could have removed the disabled vehicle which was only under possession in the strength of lease agreement instead he continued to avail four month Temporary Permit under section 87(1)(a) with the help of orders from STAT. Then he sold the vehicle on 07.04.2011 and applied Temporary Permit in respect of vehicle KL 07 W 3535. He has not applied for replacement even then. He produced an order from STAT on 05.08.2011 stating to issue Temporary Permit for any vehicle produced by the permit holder during the pendency of Renewal of application. Another vehicle KL. 13 G 9242 was introduced on 19.11.2011. This time also no steps initiated to replace leased vehicle which has objections from the financier.

¶84

It is submitted that on receiving the report from the circle officer the application for renewal of permit in R/o S/C KL 08 N 9394 and the report

¶85

W.A Nos.15 & 19 of 2022

¶86

¶87

was placed before the RTA meeting held on 03.10.2015 and the application for renewal of permit was rejected observing that even after the lapse of 7 years the permit holder couldn't clear the amount owed to the HP Co. and hence he is not economically fit to conduct the service and the application for renewal of permit was rejected u/s 81(4)(a) of the MV Act, 1988. This order was challenged before STAT vide MVAA 17/2016 and temporary permits have been issued consecutively to another vehicle KL 08 AD 2111 owned by the permit holder The lease agreement in respect of KL 08 N 9394 was ceased to be effective with effect from 13.09.2011 on completion of 3 years. More over the vehicle was off road with effect from December 2009. The permit is left with no vehicle attached to it with effect from 13.09.2011 and renewal application submitted on 30.11.2013 is incomplete and cannot be considered. The same issue is applicable to the application submitted on 26.11.2018 as well. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner/permit holder never initiated steps to produce another vehicle even after owned many vehicles during this period instead he was availing Temporary Permit u/s 87(1)(d) in respect of different vehicles even after the learned STAT pronounced final judgment in MVAA No. 17/2016 on 16.02.2018.

¶88

Though the above order is issued on 16.02.2018, it is produced before this authority after 3 years of its pronouncement. As per the judgement in MVAA No.17/2016 it is stated that "The appellant shall file a fresh application for renewal incorporating the subsequent development and on receipt of the said application the first respondent shall consider and dispose of it in accordance with law after hearing both sides "

¶89

It is submitted that on 23.11.2021, the appellant Sri.Sreeraman also submitted an application for renewal of permit and a copy of the order of the Hon'ble STAT in MVAA No. 17/2016 dated 16.02 2018. Though he is aware of the pronouncement of the above order, he has not submitted the

¶90

W.A Nos.15 & 19 of 2022

¶91

¶92

copy to this authority till 23.11.2021. He had been availing successive temporary 4 months STP u/s 87(1)(d) of MV Act in disguise that no further order against the issue of STPs in R/o S/C KL 08 AD 2111 are issued. Thus he was misleading this authority thereby wasting the precious time of both the learned STAT and this respondent office also. The application dated 25.10.2021 for four months temporary permit in respect of S/C KL. 08 AD 2111 in place of KL 08 N 9394 was rejected vide order No C6/13902/2021 dated 08.12.2021 and issued proceedings thereunder. On 30 12 2021, an objection has been received from the financier, The Secretary, The Thrissur District Motor Transport Owners Cooperative Society against the replacement of the vehicle in R/o KL 08 N 9394. ”

¶93

Along with the statement, enquiry report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector dated 31.2022 and the order of the Regional Transport Officer, Thrissur dated 3.2.2022 are produced, from where it is clear that the application submitted by the appellant for renewal of permit and replacement of vehicle on 23.11.2021 along with the order in MVAA No.17/2016 dated 16.2.2018 were rejected.

¶94

A reply is filed by the appellant, and an additional statement is filed by the Regional Transport Officer, Thrissur reiterating the stand adopted in the writ petition and justifying its action in view of the failure on the part of the appellant to produce the NOC from the financier.

¶95

We have heard Sri.P.Deepak for the appellant, Sri.K.P.Harish – learned Senior Government Pleader for the State Officials, Sri.M.Jithesh Menon & Sri. Dinesh Menon for the party respondents/rival operators and perused the pleadings

¶96

W.A Nos.15 & 19 of 2022

¶97

¶98

and material on record.

¶99

The sole question to be considered is whether any interference is required to the judgement of the learned Single Judge ? The deliberation of the issues raised by the rival parties makes it clear that the rival parties have advanced contentions of the legal issues based on various factual circumstances. It was taking note of the above said factual circumstances and legal issues, which had not been considered by the Tribunal in MVAA No.17/2016, the learned Single Judge has remitted the matter to the Tribunal for consideration probably, for ascertaining the veracity and truth of the same by calling for the files and report from the Motor vehicle Authorities. This we say because in the stage carriage permit bearing No.8/20/1984, the registration mark of the vehicle is shown as KL-08-N-9394, which is admittedly a vehicle on lease taken by the appellant and validity of the permit was from 26.12.2003 to 25.12.2008. However, the temporary permit dated 21.11.2015 shows that the registration mark of the vehicle is KL-13G-9242 and reissue was sought for the period from 23.11.2015 to 22.3.2016. But fact remains, before the re-issue of the temporary permit, the application for permit was rejected under section 81(4)(a) of Act, 1988 as per the proceedings dated 3.10.2015.

¶100

It is true that during the pendency of the appeal, challenging the said order, as per the interim order passed by the Tribunal, temporary permits were being reissued by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority against vehicle

¶101

W.A Nos.15 & 19 of 2022

¶102

¶103

Nos.KL-13G-9242 and KL-08-AD 2111. After disposal of the appeal in the year 2018, a temporary permit was issued to vehicle bearing No.KL-08-AD 2111 for the period from 26^th July, 2021 to 22^nd November, 2021. However in the application for renewal of permit, the registration mark of the vehicle covered by the permit is shown as KL-08N-9394, which is a vehicle taken on lease by the appellant. Therefore, it is clear and evident that after disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal, the appellant has not submitted any fresh application as directed by the Tribunal seeking permit after replacement of the vehicle.

¶104

Anyhow, it is only on 22.11.2021, Exhibit P13 application was filed by the appellant seeking replacement of the vehicle bearing No.KL-08 AD 2111 with KL-08 N-9394. It was just before filing the said application that a temporary permit application is filed dated 23.10.2021, wherein the appellant has sought for re-issue

¶105

of temporary permit for four months in place of vehicle bearing No.KL-08-9394 as per order in MP No.450/16 of the STAT.

¶106

It is curious to note that MVAA No.17 of 2016 was disposed of by the Tribunal as early as on 16^th February, 2018 but in the application for temporary permit, the appellant has shown, M.P.No.45 of 2016 of the STAT, which is apparently the interim order passed by the Tribunal dated 30^th August, 2016; however, after the disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal, we are unable to understand how the order in the Miscellaneous Petition was shown for renewal of a

¶107

W.A Nos.15 & 19 of 2022

¶108

¶109

temporary permit.

¶110

That part, the appellant has preferred these appeals on 5.1.2022 & 6.1.2022, respectively; but we are informed that it was done after participating in the proceedings before the Tribunal as directed by the learned Single Judge. But the learned counsel for appellant submitted that the application was filed before the Tribunal for revalidating the permit by making it explicit in the affidavit filed before the Tribunal that the appellant intends to prefer an appeal against the judgement of the learned Single Judge. However, the contention advanced by the rival operators is that since the appellant has participated in the proceedings before the Tribunal, the appellant has acquiesced with the proceedings and a parallel remedy sought for in these appeals, cannot be sustained under law. We find force in the said contention because the application for revalidating the permit is filed

¶111

under Section 214 (2) of the Act 1988, which is a provision dealing with the consideration of the renewal of the permit, when a challenge against the order of any authority is pending before the tribunal.

¶112

Having considered the rival submissions made across the Bar and the factual and legal circumstances discussed above, we are of the undoubted opinion that there are issues, which would have to be sorted out by the Tribunal by considering the submission of the rival parties; and ascertaining the true and correct facts so as to apply the law for the purposes of renewal of the permit;

¶113

W.A Nos.15 & 19 of 2022

¶114

¶115

replacement of the vehicle; and the legal circumstances under which the application can be considered as provided under section 87(1)(d) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

¶116

To put it short, we have no hesitation to say that the appellant has not made out a case of any jurisdictional error or other legal infirmities justifying our interference in an intra court appeal filed under section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1988. Resultantly, writ appeals fail, accordingly, they are dismissed, making it

¶117

clear that the legal and factual contentions raised by the rival parties are left open for adjudication of the Tribunal.

Sd/-

S.MANIKUMAR

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY

smv

JUDGE

K.Sreeraman, v. Jayanand C.M .

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Sreeraman, v. Jayanand C.M .

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vidyamandir Educational Charitable Society Vs the Registrar

Johnson Padamadan Vs State of Kerala

Quilon Educational Trust Vs Paristhithi Samrakshana Ekopana Samithi

Anil Kumar S Vs Authorised Officer

The Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions Vs Prestige Estates Projects Limited

Sreeraman, Vs Regional Transport Authority