Back
1995 Supreme(Ker) 407
High Court of Kerala
K. Sreedharan, B.N. Patnaik, JJ.
M C Kumaran - Appellant
Versus
K M Jacob & Anr - Respondent
W.A. No. 65 of 1995
Decided On : 19-01-1995
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the timings of stage carriages can only be revised if there is a valid ground or reason for the revision, and the statutory authority cannot alter the timings arbitrarily without any change in circumstances.
Headnote:
Regional Transport Authority - Motor Vehicles Act - R.212 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute between two stage carriage operators regarding the grant of a permit on a specific route and the timings for their vehicles. The appellant filed an appeal against the judgment of the Single Judge, alleging that he was not afforded an opportunity to be heard in the matter.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the judgment rendered by the Single Judge was void as the appellant was not given an opportunity to be heard. The Court set aside the judgment and allowed the writ Appeal with costs, including Advocate's fee of Rs. 1000/- to be paid by the first respondent to the appellant.
Issues: The issues involved the grant of a permit on a specific route and the timings for the vehicles of the stage carriage operators. The appellant alleged that he was not heard in the matter, leading to the appeal against the judgment of the Single Judge.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court referred to R.212 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and the interpretation of the scope and effect of the rule. The Court emphasized that the timings of stage carriages cannot be altered or changed at the discretion of the statutory authority without any valid reason or change in circumstances.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the judgment rendered by the Single Judge and allowed the writ Appeal with costs, including Advocate's fee of Rs. 1000/- to be paid by the first respondent to the appellant.
K. Sreedharan, J.
1. Second, respondent in O.P 18223 of 1994 is the appellant. Eventhough he was made second respondent in the Original Petition, no notice was issued to him. Without affording him an opportunity of being heard in the matter, the learned Single Judge allowed the Original Petition after hearing the learned Government Pleader, who seems to have represented the secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam. Hence this appeal.
2. On behalf of first respondent in the appeal, who was the writ petitioner, Sri. K. V. Gopinathan Nair entered appearance. We heard arguments of counsel appearing on either side in extenso. We are finally disposing of the appeal.
3. Petitioner in the Original Petition and the second respondent are stage carriage operators. Petitioner's vehicle, bearing registration No. KCF 9727, is covered by a permit on the route Vattaparambu - Mulamkuzhy via. Angamaly, Kalady and Malayattoor. While he was plying the vehicle on that route, Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam considered the application of the second respondent, appellant herein, for the grant of a permit on the route Koovappady - Mulamkuzhy via. Perumbavoor and Kalady in relation to the vehicles KEE 2642. That application was allowed and a permit was granted subject to settlement of timings. First respondent by proceedings No. C5/57435/94/E dated 8.11.1994 issued a set of timings for the vehicles of the second respondent. Alleging that the said set of timings granted to the vehicle of the second respondent clashed with the timings of the writ petitioner's vehicle, he filed a representation before the first respondent on 11.11.1994. This was done without taking any step to question the correctness of the proceedings issued by the first respondent on 8.11.1994. After filing Ext. P1 representation before the first respondent in the original petition, he approached this court by filing O.P. 18223/94 in 24.12.1994 and got the Original Petition disposed of by judgement dated 30.12.1994 by directing the first respondent to dispose of Exhibit P1 representation.
4. The judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge may appear to be innocuous, not prejudicially affecting the interest of the second respondent, who was not heard in the matter. But on a closer scrutiny, it is evident that petitioner has stolen a march over the second respondent in getting Annexure A1 varied without recourse to the remedy that is provided by the Motor Vehicles Act. Under the cover of the impugned judgment, petitioner wants to have the proceedings dated 8.11.1994 varied to his advantage. Can such a step be permitted?
5. Identical issue came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Krishnankutty V. John, 1992 (2) KLT 883. This court went into the scope and effect of R.212 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. After an exhaustive survey of the entire legal position, Division Bench observed as follows:
"It was argued that the Secretary, RTA, can revise the timings from "time to time" as enjoined in R.212. It was contended that the timings once fixed can be changed or varied any number of times. We are unable to accept this plea. The words from time to time" means "as occasion may arise". See Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, 5th Edn. Page 1053. Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edn., Page 601, gives the meaning "occasionally, at intervals, now and then." It is evident that to revise the timings an "occasion should arise" and it can be so only when there is a change or alteration in the situation or circumstances. Without anything more, the order fixing the timings of the stage carriages cannot be altered or changed at the ipse dixit of the statutory authority under Rs. 212 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. If the interpretation placed by counsel for the first respondent is accepted, it will render R.212 of the rules infirm. It will clothe the statutory authority with uncanalised and unguided power to change the timings once made, arbitrarily and with
