Allowed

The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. K.O.Mathew

Kerala HC2 Feb 2024WP(C)/2280/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed Kerala RTC's writ petition quashing State Transport Appellate Tribunal order, holding permit renewal invalid without other RTA countersignatures and forbidding renewal for routes exceeding 140 kms per Section 100 Scheme.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition allowed; Order of State Transport Appellate Tribunal set aside; Exhibit P3 (Tribunal Judgment) quashed.

The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs K.O.Mathew — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 13TH MAGHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 2280 OF 2017

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶7

BY ADV SRI.P.C.CHACKO, SC, KERALA STATE ROAD TR

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 K.O.MATHEW

¶10

KOCHUKAROTTE HOUSE, PAMPADI P.O., KOTTAYAM-686502.

¶11

2 P.C.DINESH

¶12

S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, LAXMI BHAVAN, KUMARAMANGLAMA, KOTTAYAM-686521.

¶13

3 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-682011.

¶14

4 THE SECRETARY

¶15

REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM-682011.

¶16

5 STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM-682011.

¶17

BY ADVS.

¶18

SRI. BINOY DAVIS, GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.DEEPAK FOR R2

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶20

02.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

W.P.(C.)NO.2280 OF 2017

¶22

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Dated this the 02^nd day of February, 2024

¶25

The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, has

¶26

filed this Writ Petition, challenging the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in M.V.A.A. No.167 of 2014.

¶27

The brief facts are that;

¶28

The 1^st respondent had obtained regular permit in respect of stage carriage bearing Registration Nos.KL5-U-1632 and KL-5-N-4662 on the route Changanassery-

¶29

Konnakkad via Karukachal, Manthuruthy, Pampady, Pallikkathode, Anicadu, Chengalam, Pala, Karimkunnam, Thodupuzha, Moovattupuzha, Kothamangalam, Odakkaly, Perumbavoor, Thrissur, Kunnamkulam, Perumpilavu, Kuttippuram, Valanchery, Kottakkal Bus Stand, Feroke, Kozhikode, Kannur, Taliparambu, Payyannur, Aruvanchal, Cherupuzha, Chittarakkal, Beemanadi, and Vellarikkund as a Limited Stop Ordinary Service. Though the permit passes through

¶30

W.P.(C.)NO.2280 OF 2017

¶31

¶32

more than one District on the aforesaid route, the permit was originally granted by the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam, without the countersignature of other Regional Transport Authorities.

¶33

When the 1^st respondent applied for renewal of the permit, the same was rejected by Ext.P1 order on the finding that, since there was no countersignature/concurrence from the Regional Transport Authorities at Thrissur, Kozhikode and Vadakara, the application for renewal of the permit cannot be considered. It was also found that the route length is more than 140 kms and the permit could not be renewed as Limited Stop Ordinary Service.

¶34

Respondents 1 and 2 filed Ext.P2 appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, by Ext.P3 order, set aside Ext.P1 order and directed re-consideration of the matter at the hands of the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam.

¶35

W.P.(C.)NO.2280 OF 2017

¶36

¶37

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that Ext.P3 order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal is clearly illegal. It is submitted that the question as to whether renewal can be granted in a case, where the concurrence of other Regional Transport Authorities is required, was considered by this Court in Benny Mathew v. Alexander Joseph [2003 (1) KLT 505] , with reference to Section 88(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Specific reference is made to paragraph No.8 of the aforesaid judgment. It is also submitted that, in terms of the modified Scheme, framed under Section 100 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the petitioner is not entitled to a permit on the aforesaid route.

¶38

The learned Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 would report no instructions.

¶39

Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learner Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2, I am of the view that, the petitioner is entitled to

¶40

W.P.(C.)NO.2280 OF 2017

¶41

¶42

succeed. It is clear from a reading of the judgment this Court in Benny Mathew (Supra), that, unless the countersignature from the Regional Transport Authorities of other areas through which permit is granted, is obtained, no renewal can be sought in respect of such permit. Paragraph No.8 of the judgment

¶43

in Benny Mathew (Supra) is as follows:-

¶44

“Permits are issued for a specific period for operation of the vehicle on a specified route. When one of the conditions for validating the permit and for operation of the vehicle was to obtain the countersignature from the authorities of other regions, such permit after the period stipulated for the operation of the vehicle can never be said to be a proper validation of the permit. When the permit is sought to be renewed, there should be a valid permit for operation throughout the route. If countersignature from the authority of a particular region is not obtained, it cannot be said that the permit is valid over that region and thereby it is not a valid permit for operating on the entire route.”

¶45

That apart, in terms of the Scheme framed under

¶46

W.P.(C.)NO.2280 OF 2017

¶47

¶48

Section 100 of the Motor Vehicles Act, by the Government of Kerala, the petitioner is clearly not entitled to permit on the route exceeding 140 kms.

¶49

For all these reasons, the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Ext.P3 will stand quashed.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE

NB/2-2

W.P.(C.)NO.2280 OF 2017

¶55

¶56

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2280/2017

¶57

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 20-5-2014 AS ITEM NO.71. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 5-8-2014. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10-11-2016 IN M.V.A.A.NO.167/2014. RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS: NIL

¶58

TRUE COPY

¶59

P.A. TO JUDGE

The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. K.O.Mathew

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. K.O.Mathew

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.K.George., Vs Mavelikkara Taluk Co-Operative Bank Ltd.No. 707

Sharmila Surendran, Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh Kumar.S Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Kerala State

The Ayavana Agricultural Improvement Co-Operative Society Ltd.No.E 1214 Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (G)

Sheeba Silvia John Vs the Central Provident Fund Commissioner

Binchu W.C Vs the District Police Chief