IMPORTANT POINTS
When statutory authorities or quasi -judicial authorities constituted by the Legislature do not properly exercise their power or fail to exercise their power, the High Court has to make those authorities or quasi-judicial authorities to perform their statutory duties. If the operators approach this Court while the applications are still pending before the RTA, this Court cannot itself apply the relevant provisions and pass final orders directing issue of permits. The proper procedure in such circumstances would be to direct such authorities to perform their functions.

JUDGMENT :

S. Manikumar, J.

Challenge in this writ appeal is to the correctness of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.26375/2019 dated 3rd October, 2019, by which the writ court, taking note of Exts.45 to 48 judgments rendered on the request made for grant of variation of permits, directed the Regional Transport Authority, Ayyanthole, Thrissur, appellant No.1, to accept the application for variation of permit and to grant permit to the writ petitioners therein, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of the applications.

2. Before the writ court respondents have contended that they are auto rickshaw drivers operating within the limits of Thrissur city and there are no restriction of number of auto rickshwas operating within the cities. Hence they sought for a direction to the appellants to vary the permit conditions and allow them to operate within the cities.

3. Judgment made in W.P.(C) No.26375/2019 dated 3rd October, 2019, is impugned on the following grounds:

(A) The Petitioners having valid permits for plying their auto rickshaws on fit roads in Trichur District, except the vehicle shall not pick up passengers from within the City. Most of the Petitioners are residing within the limits of City and they have to travel long distances in Order to reach their parking place. So the condition stipulating not to park or pick up passengers from within the city is arbitrary and legally unsustainable.

(B) The Respondents are duty bound to give full effect to Ext.P45 Judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam, and Ext P46, P47 and P48 Judgments of this Hon'ble Court and should have granted permit to the Petitioners after accepting their application and the prescribed fee fixed for that purpose. The action of the Respondents is highly unjustifiable and arbitrary.

(C) The Respondents while discharging their official duties is bound to obey the judicial pronouncements on the subject.

4. Though several grounds have been raised, placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in T. Muhammed V. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram and others reported in 1993 KHC 2016, Mr. P. Santhosh Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader, submitted that when discretion is conferred on Regional Transport Authority to consider the applications for grant of permit or for variation of permit conditions in terms of section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, positive directions issued by the writ court would curtail the powers of Regional Transport Authority to consider the applications, as per the statutory provisions.

5. Learned Special Government Pleader, placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Rajesh T. v. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority and Another reported in 2014 (3) KLT 341, the relevant portion is extracted hereunder:

“19. On the reasoning above, as also the precedents noticed, it has to be unequivocally found and declared that the Regional Transport Authority or any other prescribed authority while considering the grant of permit, whether it be a stage carriage or a contract carriage permit, is not statutorily shackled by an unfettered right on the part of the applicant to be granted a permit. It is conferred with the power to summarily refuse in the event of the grant exceeding the limit of a notification issued by the State Government. Again it cannot be gainsaid that; that alone would be the solitary instance where the grant could be refused. The mere existence of a number of permits and the decision by the Regional Transport Authority or a higher authority to restrict the grant based on numbers alone would fall foul, since such limits could be prescribed only by the State Government under a notification. But necessarily, the authority could take into account the population in an area, the need for public transport, the mode of transport ordinarily used by the majority of the residents of an area, the number of roads and the condition of such roads, the traffic congestion caused by indis