Disposed

C.M.Jayanand v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal

Kerala HC6 Sept 2022WP(C)/28056/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an interim order granting a temporary permit to the fourth respondent for operating a bus beyond 140 Km. The High Court directed the Tribunal to consider the appeal and applications in an expeditious manner while impleading KSRTC. The petition was disposed of by setting aside two exhibits.

What did the court decide?

Disposing of the writ petition by directing the Tribunal to consider the appeal and applications expeditiously, and setting aside Exts. P7 and P9.

C.M.Jayanand Vs State Transport Appellate Tribunal — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 6^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022/15TH BHADRA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 28056 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

C.M.JAYANAND, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.MAHADEVAN, CHIRAKKAL HOUSE, PERUMBALASSERY, P.O.CHERPU, THRISSUR - 680 561.

¶7

BY ADV I.DINESH MENON

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM - 682 011.

¶10

2 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, VATAKARA, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, CIVIL STATION P.O., VATAKARA - 673 101, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶11

3 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, VATAKARA, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, CIVIL STATION P.O., VATAKARA - 673 101.

¶12

4 SENTHIL KUMAR, S/O.KAILASANATHAN, SREERAJESWARAY HOUSE, SANKARAPURAM, POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR - 680 001.

¶13

W.P.(C) No.28056/2022

¶14

: 2 :

¶15

5 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CHIEF OFFICE, FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 034, KADAVALLOR, THRISSUR.

¶16

BY ADV SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.DEEPU THANKAN, SC, KSRTC

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

W.P.(C) No.28056/2022

: 3 :

N. NAGARESH, J.

W.P.(C) No.28056 of 2022

¶23

Dated this the 6^th day of September, 2022

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶26

The petitioner states that he is an existing stage

¶27

carriage operator, operating on the route KozhikodeThrissur, operating through stage carriage KL-08AT-5859. The 4^th respondent also operates a stage carriage in the area.

¶28

The petitioner states that the route of the 4^th respondent is more than 140 Km. distance and in view of an amendment brought to the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, the 4^th respondent cannot operate on the Thalassery-Thrissur route covering a distance of 195 Km. The regular permit held by the 4^th respondent expired and the Secretary to the Regional Transport Authority, Vatakara rejected the

¶29

W.P.(C) No.28056/2022

¶30

: 4 :

¶31

application submitted by the 4^th respondent for temporary permit, as per Ext.P2.

¶32

In appeal MVAA No.109/2022, the Tribunal granted an interim order directing to issue a temporary permit to the 4^th respondent for two months. The petitioner filed an application for impleading in the MVAA. The petitioner approached this Court aggrieved by the interim order passed by the Tribunal.

¶33

The petitioner states that the 4^th respondent is not entitled to operate beyond 140 Km. in the light of the orders passed by a Division Bench of this Court. In the entire Kerala State, not even a single service is operating beyond 140 Km. as LSOS. Ext.P7 interim order passed by the Tribunal is violative of the law laid down by this Court in W.A. No.772/2022. Ext.P7 interim order is therefore liable to be set aside.

¶34

When the writ petition came up for admission, this Court passed an interim order on 30.08.2022 staying the operation of Ext.P7 till the next date of hearing. In the

¶35

W.P.(C) No.28056/2022

¶36

: 5 :

¶37

meanwhile, the Tribunal passed an order modifying its earlier order. On 02.09.2022, this Court stayed the Tribunal‘s modified order also.

¶38

The 4^th respondent resisted the writ petition filing a counter affidavit. The 4^th respondent submitted that he was holding a regular permit for operating in ThalasseryKozhikode-Thrissur Road, issued on 12.08.1994. The permit was renewed from time to time and it was valid up to 11.08.2014. The 4^th respondent has submitted application for renewal of regular permit, which application is still pending.

¶39

Pending the application, the 4^th respondent was allowed to operate the service on the strength of temporary permits issued. According to the 4^th respondent, his permit is saved as per the prevailing notifications. The Tribunal modified the interim order granted to the petitioner by limiting the distance within 140 Km. The order of the Tribunal is perfectly in tune with the Division Bench judgment of this Court. The 4^th respondent contended that the petitioner has filed the writ petition solely with a view to see that the bus

¶40

W.P.(C) No.28056/2022

¶41

: 6 :

¶42

service of the 4^th respondent is stopped during the Onam vacation somehow.

¶43

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent. I have also heard the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Standing Counsel representing the 5^th respondent-Managing Director, KSRTC.

¶44

It is the specific case of the petitioner that the 4^th respondent cannot be granted a Temporary Permit to operate on the route, as the distance exceeds 140 Km. The 4^th respondent would, however, submit that the permit issued to him is a saved permit.

¶45

A Division Bench of this Court in KSRTC and Others v. Saju Varkey [2018 (4) KLJ 145] has held that permits enjoyed by all the petitioners are “Saved permits”; they thus being entitled to operate at least until such time as a valid Scheme of Nationalisation, or a modification of earlier, is brought in under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.

¶46

W.P.(C) No.28056/2022

¶47

: 7 :

¶48

According to the petitioner, the 4^th respondent is not entitled to operate beyond 140 Km. in the light of the orders passed by the Division Bench.

¶49

The 4^th respondent would state that in the light of the interim orders of this Court, he has filed application for curtailing the route limiting the distance within 140 Km., and such applications were permitted by this Court and the Tribunal. Therefore, whatever be the legality of Ext.P7 order,

¶50

the petitioner is legally entitled to seek permit for a distance within 140 Km.

¶51

In view of the facts and circumstances as narrated above, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal shall consider the appeal and pass final orders thereon, in the light of the submissions now made by the petitioner as well as the 4^th respondent. Keeping this writ petition alive at this stage will not be in the interest of either of the contesting parties.

¶52

The writ petition is therefore disposed of setting aside Exts.P7 and P9 and directing the 1^st respondentTribunal to consider the appeal as well as the application

¶53

W.P.(C) No.28056/2022

¶54

: 8 :

¶55

filed by the 4^th respondent in an expeditious manner. The 4^th respondent shall implead the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation in the appeal, as the KSRTC is an affected party.

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

¶58

aks/14.09.2022

¶59

W.P.(C) No.28056/2022

¶60

: 9 :

¶61

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28056/2022

¶62

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶63

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY	OF THE	PERMI	T ISSUED TO
	PETITIONER THRISSUR D	ON THE ATED 15/7/	ROUTE 2022.	KOZHIKODE -
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY 3RD RESPON	OF THE DENT DATED	PROCEED 13/6/	INGS OF THE 2022.
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY MVAA NO.10	OF THE AP 9/2022 DAT	PEAL M ED 20/	EMORANDUM IN 6/2022.
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY NO.14788/2	OF THE 020 DATED	JUDGME 12/01/	NT IN WP(C) 2022.
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY 20/6/2022	OF THE OBTAINED F	CASE ROM CO	STATUS DATED URT WEBSITE.
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY DATED 16/8	OF THE I /2022 WITH	MPLEAD EXHIB	ING PETITION ITS.
Exhibit P7	TRUE COP	Y OF	THE	ORDER IN
	M.P.NO.511 DATED 17/8	/2022 IN /2022.	MVAA	NO.109/2022
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY PETITION	OF TH IN M.	E AF P.NO.8	FIDAVIT AND 46/2022 IN
	M.P.NO.511 DATED 31/8	/2022 IN /2022	MVAA	NO.109/2022
Exhibit P9	TRUE CO	PY OF	TH	E ORDERIN
	M.P.NO.846 MVAA NO.10	/2022 IN 9/2022 DAT	M.P.NO ED 31/	.511/2022 IN 8/2022.

¶64

C.M.Jayanand v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.M.Jayanand v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal

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

Achamma Vs State of Kerala

Sree Narayana Dharma Sabha, Vs Kodungaloor Municipality

Jamna Nizamudheen Vs Vishnuraj. P.

Shiju K. Vs the Secretary

Nasi. E.G, Vs the Authorized Officer

Gopikrishnan S. Vs the District Level Authorization Committee for Transplantation of Human Organs, Alappuzha