Dismissed

Shaju Antony v. the Regional Transpsort Authority

Kerala HC13 Oct 2023WP(C)/29313/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the renewal of a stage carriage permit granted to the third respondent by the Regional Transport Authority. The Court held that the order was in larger public interest and minor irregularities do not render it illegal.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders permitting the renewal and replacement of the third respondent's stage carriage permit are upheld.

Shaju Antony Vs the Regional Transpsort Authority — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 21ST ASWINA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 29313 OF 2023

¶5

PETITIONER/S:

¶6

SHAJU ANTONY, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O ANTU, THECKANATH PULICKALAN HOUSE, KARUKUTTY, PIN - 683576

¶7

BY ADVS. P.DEEPAK; NAZRIN BANU

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPSORT AUTHORITY ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, ERNAULAM, PIN - 682030

¶10

2 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030

¶11

3 BOBY GEORGE

¶12

PARAKKA HOUSE, EZHATTUMUGHAM PO, ANKAMALY, PIN - 683577

¶13

4 SANEESH A.S, AMMUPPILLY HOUSE, YOODHAPURAM, KALADY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683572

¶14

5 THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011

¶15

BY ADV O.D.SIVADAS

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

W.P.(C) No.29313/2023

¶18

-2-

¶19

S. GOPINATHAN-SR.GP

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

W.P.(C) No.29313/2023

¶22

-3-

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner impugning Exts. P11 and P14 order whereby the 3^rd respondent has been permitted to replace the existing vehicle with regular

¶25

permit No.P.St. 7/2659/2006 on Munnurpilly – Elavoor – Palissery – Malayatoor via Angamaly and Kalady in the vacant timings of stage carriage having registration No. KL-8-W-9459 as Moffusil Service.

¶26

The petitioner herein holds a regular permit for stage carriage operation on route Munnoorppilly to Angamaly to Kalady. According to the petitioner, the permit of the petitioner and 3^rd respondent for their stage carriage operation has come on the overlapping sector of 16 km. The 3^rd respondent filed an application for renewal of his stage carriage permit on 26.08.2016. It is said that there was no

¶27

W.P.(C) No.29313/2023

¶28

-4-

¶29

report of the Motor Vehicles Inspector along with the application (Ext.P3) filed by the 3^rd respondent.

¶30

2.1 The application of the 3^rd respondent for renewal of

¶31

the permit for his stage carriage was rejected in the absence of sufficient documents of the vehicle vide Ext.P9 dated 02.08.2018. Against the said order, the 3^rd respondent approached the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT) by filing M.V.A.A. No.287/2018. The STAT vide order dated 13.07.2020 held that since during the pendency of the appeal, the 3^rd respondent has offered the new vehicle i.e., KL-18-C477, for replacement of the old vehicle, there should be no objection in granting renewal and replacement of the permit and vehicle of the 3^rd respondent.

¶32

2.2 In compliance with the said decision dated 13.07.2020 passed by the STAT, the Regional Transport

¶33

W.P.(C) No.29313/2023

¶34

-5-

¶35

Authority permitted the 3^rd respondent to produce the vehicle and permission was granted for replacement of the vehicle and the permit of the 3^rd respondent was renewed.

¶36

2.3 The Regional Transport Authority vide order dated 21.11.2020 in Ext.P14 has renewed the regular permit of the 3^rd respondent and allowed the replacement of the old vehicle. It has been taken note that the Enquiry Officer has reported that the operation of the stage carriage service on the route for which the 3^rd respondent had been granted a regular permit would be beneficial to the direct passengers from the Airport to Ezhattumugham and vice versa since there was no other stage carriage permit on the entire route length.

¶37

2.4 Considering the larger public interest involved in facilitating the passengers’ movement from the Airport to Ezhattumugham, the stage carriage permit of the 3^rd

¶38

W.P.(C) No.29313/2023

¶39

-6-

¶40

respondent has been renewed.

¶41

The petitioner, who is a competitor on a 16 km

¶42

overlapping route, wants no other operator to come on the route where the petitioner is operating. When there is a clash between the larger public interest and private interest, the Court should always lean towards holding the larger public interest. Minor irregularities in the renewal of the stage carriage permit of the 3^rd respondent would not render the order of the STAT or RTA illegal.

¶43

Therefore, I find no substance in this writ petition, which is hereby dismissed.

¶44

Sd/DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE

¶45

jjj

¶46

W.P.(C) No.29313/2023

¶47

-7-

¶48

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29313/2023

¶49

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶50

Exhibit P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER VALID TILL 21.08.2021(LATER, RENEWED UP TO 21.08.2026)
Exhibit P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT (P. ST 7/2832/2006)ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT VALID TILL 09.09.2016
Exhibit P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF PERMIT DATED 26.08.2016
Exhibit P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE MVI DATED 15.02.2017
Exhibit P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 23.02.2017
Exhibit P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REPLACEMENT DATED 1.07.2017
Exhibit P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 23.9.2017
Exhibit P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 17.3.2018
Exhibit P9	A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 2.8.2018
Exhibit P10	A TRUE COPY OF THE CASE DETAILS RELATING TO MVAA 287/2018
Exhibit P11	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE STAT DATED

¶51

W.P.(C) No.29313/2023

¶52

-8-

¶53

13.7.2020

¶54

Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 27.10.2020 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE 'OPINION' OF THE DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER-II DATED 20.11.2020 Exhibit P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 21.11.2020 TAKEN BY CIRCULATION OF PAPERS Exhibit P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 9.8.2023

Shaju Antony v. the Regional Transpsort Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaju Antony v. the Regional Transpsort Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

St Josephs Fcc Province Thalassery, Vs the Income Tax Officer

Musthafa T.K. Vs the Secretary

K.S. Muhammed Naseer Vs the Additional Registering Authority

Renuka Krishna Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Prodair Air Products India Private Limited, Vs State of Kerala

Marayamuttom Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs the Income Tax Officer