Dismissed

Jessy George v. Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam

Kerala HC25 Oct 2022WA/2651/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court dismissed a writ appeal filed against a judgment of a single judge of the same court. The single judge had directed the Regional Transport Authority to reconsider a permit dispute and conduct a re-enquiry. The appeal was dismissed on the view that nothing survived for further adjudication.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal is dismissed with the view that nothing survives for further adjudication.

Jessy George Vs Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 3RD KARTHIA, 1944

¶7

WA NO. 2651 OF 2015

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 19671/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
DATED 18.11.2015

¶9

APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN WPC:

¶10

JESSY GEORGE
W/O. GEORGE, PONMANKAL HOUSE,
THELLAKOM P.O, KOTTAYAM

¶11

BY ADV SRI.I.DINESH MENON

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN WPC:

¶13

1 REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM-686 002

¶14

2 THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM 686 002

¶15

3 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CHIEF OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

¶16

4 LAIJU JOSEPH THANDAPRA HOUSE, CHEERANCHIRA P.O, CHANGANACHERRY.

¶17

ADDL.R5 SRI P.E SHAJI, I.D 1602, MOTOR VEHICLES INSPECTOR, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, KOTTAYAM 686 002

¶18

ADDL.R6 THE SECRETARY PUTHUPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH PUTHUPPALLY 686 011

¶19

BY ADVS.

¶20

SRI.P.DEEPAK
P.C.SASIDHARAN
SRI. V. TEKCHAND, SR. GOVT. PLEADER
SMT. AKHILA -R3

¶21

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.A.2651/2015

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 25^th day of October, 2022

¶26

S. Manikumar, CJ.

¶27

Appellant is the petitioner in W.P(C).No.19671/2015. He is a permit holder, on the route Kottayam-Ettumanur, in respect of stage carriage bearing No. KL-5 S 3115.

¶28

Before the writ court, appellant/petitioner has sought

¶29

for the following reliefs:

¶30

“i. Issue a writ of certiorari or such other writs, order or direction calling for the records relating to Ext.P6 decision of RTA Kottayam dated 14.5.2015 granting regular permit on the route Changanacherry-Ettumanur.

¶31

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writs, order or direction, directing the first respondent, Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam to order an enquiry as to the actual extent of overlapping and to conduct a route measurement jointly with KSRTC.”

¶32

3. Facts necessitating for filing of the writ petition are as

¶33

under:

¶34

3.1. Petitioner is the permit holder on the route

¶35

Kottayam – Ettumanur, in respect of stage carriage KL-5 S 3115. The route on which petitioner is operating is, where only

¶36

existing permit holders alone can operate since as per

¶37

W.A.2651/2015

¶38

¶39

14.7.2009 notification, only permits which were issued prior to 2006 alone are saved. As per Clause 5[c] of 14.7.2009 notification, fresh regular permits can be granted only overlapping 5% of the notified route or 5 kms of the total route length applied for whichever is less.

¶40

3.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 4^th respondent had applied for a regular permit on the route Changanacherry-Ettumanur via Kurisummod, Chethipuzha Puthenchantha, Kannanchira, Njaliyakuzhy, Puthuppally, Manarcad Thiruvanchoor, Poovathummode, Kandanchira and Peroor. This route is covering a distance of 54.6 kms which means that the maximum permissible overlapping will be 2.730 kms.

¶41

3.3. The application for regular permit came up for consideration in the Regional Transport Authority meeting held on 14.5.2015. It was specifically objected to by the petitioner as well as the 3^rd respondent, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation [KSRTC], the mentor of the scheme. It was specifically pointed out that the field officers report was a manipulated one and it cannot be relied upon as it was

¶42

W.A.2651/2015

¶43

¶44

prepared without taking the 3^rd respondent into confidence. It was assured that a re-enquiry will be conducted in the presence of the KSRTC.

¶45

3.4. According to the petitioner, thereafter, RTA has taken a decision to grant regular permit finding that the overlapping is within the permissible limits. In the said decision it is categorically stated that the overlapping is within the permissible limit. He further contended that it is not seen as to why or how the contentions raised by the petitioner were overruled by the 3^rd respondent KSRTC.

¶46

3.5. It is also submitted that the issue raised in the preceding paragraph has been answered in Prasad v. RTA, Ernakulam [2005 (2) KLT 227], wherein this Hon’ble Court held as under:

¶47

"When an application for relief is contested, contestant is entitled to know the ground on which his objection is being overruled and an order of grant is being made”

¶48

3.6. A reading of Ext.P6 decision of the RTA would not

¶49

reveal as to why the specific objections raised against field officer's report and calculation were over-ruled, is not

¶50

W.A.2651/2015

¶51

¶52

mentioned. He further submitted that the Regional Transport Authority was more interested to follow the field officers report rather than probe as to whether the allegations or objections raised were true or not. This Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court have categorically held that no permit either regular or temporary permit could be granted on a nationalized route, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

¶53

Adarsh Travels Bus Service & Another Vs. State of U.P. &

¶54

Others reported in [1985 SCR (3) 661] case. It is for the State Road Transport Corporation to authoritatively state whether a route applied for is above the permissible limit prescribed in the scheme. No permit can be granted against provisions of Chapter VI of the Act/scheme. Ext. P6 decision of the RTA Kottayam is against Ext.P3 Scheme of nationalization and it is the specific case of the petitioner, that the distance calculated in ExtP6 decision of RTA is per-se illegal, error some and the field officer's report is manipulated. If an enquiry is conducted jointly by the Motor Vehicles Department and KSRTC officials the crucial aspects would come out. Ext.P4 objection preferred by the KSRTC where the distance of

¶55

W.A.2651/2015

¶56

¶57

overlapping is enough evidences that Ext.P6 decision of the RTA Kottayam is per se illegal.

¶58

After considering the rival submissions, vide judgment dated 18.11.2015 in W.P(C). No.19671 of 2015, writ court ordered as under:

¶59

“Therefore, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam to re-consider the issue, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, in the light of the commissioner's report and the objections raised by the 4^th respondent. If the Regional Transport Authority is satisfied with the question of facts involved, and if on a further examination of the entire materials, after affording the petitioner, the 4^th respondent and the KSRTC an opportunity of being heard, finds that the overlapping pointed out is within the permissible limit, he shall allow the 4^th respondent to operate on the basis of the permit already issued. If the overlapping is above the permissible limit, the RTA shall cancel the permit.

¶60

The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of one month.

¶61

Till that exercise is completed, the 4^th respondent shall be permitted to operate on the basis of a temporary permit which shall be issued within two weeks from the date of receipt of a coy of this judgment after settlement of timings.”

¶62

W.A.2651/2015

¶63

¶64

Being aggrieved, instant writ appeal is filed.

¶65

Record of proceedings shows that while admitting the writ appeal on 7.12.2015, a Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, has granted stay of directions, which continued thereafter.

¶66

Having regard to the averments, the nature of reliefs sought for, and the material on record, we are of the view that

¶67

as on today, nothing survives for further adjudication. Writ appeal is dismissed.

¶68

Sd/S. Manikumar, Chief Justice

¶69

Sd/Shaji P. Chaly, Judge

¶70

sou.xxxx

Jessy George v. Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jessy George v. Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunny George Vs Union of India

Nissamudin, Vs Geetha S.

The Authorized Officer Vs Jayesh Vijayan

Dhanalaxmi Bank Ltd. Vs K.N.Madhusoodanan

Dhanlaxmi Bank Ltd. Vs P.K. Vijayakumar @ Puthalathkuttan Nair Vijayakumar

Radhakrishnan Pavoor Vs State of Kerala