The High Court quashed an RTA order varying a transport permit and remanded the matter for reserving judgments after the petitioner conceded insufficient notice was given to the predecessor-in-interest under applicable judicial precedents.
Order dated 17.06.2022 set aside; matter remitted to RTA to hear petitioner and decide within 45 days.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 22962 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
IBRAHIM,
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O. KUNHALAVI, KUZHIKKATTIL HOUSE, MUNDERI P.O, CHUNGATHARA,
MALAPPURAM 679 334.
BY ADVS.
P.DEEPAK
NAZRIN BANU
RESPONDENTS:
1 REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, MALAPPURAM 676 505.2THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
MALAPPURAM REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE,
MALAPPURAM 676 505.
3 HASKAR, S/O. KUNHAMMED HAJI, ALANGADAN HOUSE, KARAKUNNU P.O, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM 676 123.4 THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 023.5 THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM 682 011.SRI K V GOPINATHAN NAIR , R3, RA.. SRI P C SASIDHARAN , SRI
DEEPU THANKAN SC KSRTC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 22962 OF 2022
2
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is stated to have purchased the permit from the predecessor in respect of vehicle bearing No.KL-10-Y-5670 on 05.07.2022 and are aggrieved of the order dated 17.06.2022 Ext.P7 of the RTA where the permit issued in favour of the 3rd respondent-Haskar in respect of the vehicle bearing No.KL-58C-6537 has been permitted to be varied.
were no wide circulation of notice of hearing to give the opportunity, even the predecessor has filed the objection as evidenced from the notice of timing conference dated 31.03.2022 Ext.P8.
WP(C) NO. 22962 OF 2022
3
objection as per the Larger Bench judgment of this court in Ratheesh v. Regional Transport Authority [2015 (1) KLT 248 (L.B.)].
the RTA which passed order in terms of the remand of State
WP(C) NO. 22962 OF 2022
4
Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 11.09.2020, for the reason that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner ought to have been given a notice particularly when he was plying up to 30 km on the same route, that is the notified route, and though the provisions of notification dated 23.03.2017 are still in force, they have been partly diluted by the judgment of this court in
K.P.Manikandan (supra), paragraph 15 thereof reads as under:
Accordingly, the order dated 17.06.2022 Ext. P7 is set
aside. Matter is remitted to the RTA. RTA is directed to hear the petitioner and consider the detailed objections and decide the matter within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt
WP(C) NO. 22962 OF 2022
5
of the certified copy of this judgment. 3rd respondent is at
liberty to submit all documents in support of the objections. Writ petition is disposed off.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE
nak
WP(C) NO. 22962 OF 2022
6
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22962/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT ISSUED TO
THE PETITIONER VALID TILL 25.09.2024.
Exhibit P1(a)TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 04.05.2019.
Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED
007/01/2020 ALONG WITH TRANSLATION.
Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST
RESPONDENT DATED 07.01.2020.
Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
11.09.2020 IN MVAA NO. 66/2020
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.05.2021 IN W.P.C NO. 10012 OF 2021.Exhibit P6TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 02.10.2021.
Exhibit P7TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 17.06.2022.
Exhibit P8TRUE COPY OF THE TIMING CONFERENCE NOTICE
DATED 31.03.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the order of the RTA varying the permit in favour of a rival should be quashed due to lack of notice to the petitioners predecessor-in-interest.
Whether the petitioner is required to avail the remedy of revision under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Whether the RTA must reconsider the variation application considering the judgment in K.P. Manikandan which diluted notification provisions.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ratheesh v. Regional Transport AuthorityReferred¶23
Ratheesh v. Regional Transport Authority [2015 (1) KLT 248 (L.B.)]
K.P. Manikandan v. The Regional Transport Authority and OthersApplied¶27
K.P. Manikandan v. The Regional Transport Authority and Others
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Ibrahim
Regional Transport Authority Malappuram
The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority Malappuram
Haskar
Kerala State Road Transport Corporation
State Transport Appellate Tribunal Ernakulam
Amit Rawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court