Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Anil K.Narendran, J.
Mohammed Rafi – Petitioner
Versus
The Secretary Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram and Ors. – Respondents
WP(C).No. 2096 of 2019
Decided On : 07-02-2019
Statement of facts:
The petitioner is the holder of a regular permit on the route Puduponnani-Edappal in respect of stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-18/855, with seating capacity 28 in all, with date of registration as 13.01.2003, which has attained the age of 15 years on 12.01.2018. On 07.01.2019, the petitioner made Ext.P3 application for replacement of the said vehicle with another stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-54/6364, with seating capacity 28 in all, with date of registration as 04.10.2007. The petitioner has moved this Court in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram to consider Ext.P3 application for replacement of stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-18/855 with stage carriage bearing registration No.54/6364, so as to operate on the route Puduponnani-Edappal, on the strength of Ext.P1 permit, in the light of the decision reported in Aysha v. R.T.A., Kasaragod [2006 (3) KLT 1013]. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent to make necessary endorsement on Ext.P1 permit relating to replacement of the said vehicles; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P6 application for temporary permit on the above route, in respect of stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-54/6364, in place of stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-18/855, and grant the same, if there is no other legal impediment.
Finding of the court:
Directing the 1st respondent to place Ext.P3 application made by the petitioner for replacement of the vehicle covered by Ext.P1 permit, before the additional 2nd respondent Regional Transport Authority, after obtaining a report as to the road worthiness and the statutory compliance of the incoming vehicle with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules made thereunder. Thereafter the said Authority shall consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P1 application, taking note of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra and that laid down in this judgment. A decision in this regard shall be taken, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six weeks, with notice to the petitioner and after affording him an opportunity of being heard.
Result: Writ petition is disposed of
The petitioner is the holder of a regular permit on the route Puduponnani-Edappal in respect of stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-18/855, with seating capacity 28 in all, with date of registration as 13.01.2003, which has attained the age of 15 years on 12.01.2018. On 07.01.2019, the petitioner made Ext.P3 application for replacement of the said vehicle with another stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-54/6364, with seating capacity 28 in all, with date of registration as 04.10.2007. The petitioner has moved this Court in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram to consider Ext.P3 application for replacement of stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-18/855 with stage carriage bearing registration No.54/6364, so as to operate on the route Puduponnani-Edappal, on the strength of Ext.P1 permit, in the light of the decision reported in Aysha v. R.T.A., Kasaragod [2006 (3) KLT 1013]. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent to make necessary endorsement on Ext.P1 permit relating to replacement of the said vehicles; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P6 application for temporary permit on the above route, in respect of stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-54/6364, in place of stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-18/855, and grant the same, if there is no other legal impediment.
2. On 24.01.2019, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Senior Government Pleader was directed to get instructions.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
4. The learned Senior Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that the 1st respondent shall place Ext.P3 application made by the petitioner for replacement, before the 2nd respondent Regional Transport Authority, after conducting an inspection of the incoming vehicle. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent shall consider that application with notice to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. The learned Government Pleader would also submit that the 1st respondent shall consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 application for temporary permit, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.
5. In Usha Nanthini M. V. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad & another [2018 (2) KHC 89] this Court held that, in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench in Regional Transport Authority and another v. Shaju [ILR 2017 (3) Kerala 720], no request made by a permit holder for replacement of vehicle can be declined merely for the reason that the incoming vehicle is an older model, subject, of course, to the older model vehicle being certified as roadworthy. This Court, after referring to the decision of the Apex Court in M.C. Metha v Union of India [(1997) 8 SCC 770], wherein it was held that the requirement of maintaining the motor vehicles in the manner prescribed and its use if roadworthy in a manner which does not endanger public, has to be ensured by the authorities and this is the aim of the provisions enacted in the Motor Vehicles Act; and also the provisions under Section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act, (which deals with certification of fitness of transport vehicles) and Rule 62 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, (which deals with validity of certificate of fitness) held that, a vehicle which no longer complies with all the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules made thereunder cannot be permitted to be driven or plied on the road. Therefore, roadworthiness and viability of the incoming vehicle shall be the consideration in an application for replacement, rather than the model of the incoming vehicle.
6. In Jijith v. State of Kerala and others [2019 (1) KHC 463], this Court held
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
