Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 46084
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
S.MANIKUMAR, CJ, SHAJI P.CHALY, J
M.D.MANI, – Appellant
Versus
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, – Respondent
WA/1238/2022
SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL, CHERIAN MATHEW POOTHICOTE, AJITH VILLY GEORGE(K/642/2014), SRI. K P HARISH SR GP
The judgment establishes that the Tribunal cannot assume the powers of the Regional Transport Authority in permitting matters, and procedural compliance with statutory guidelines is essential.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles - Permits - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 & Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 - The Tribunal's direction to the Regional Transport Authority regarding the fixing of termini for permits must comply with established legal procedures.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged the issuance of stage carriage permits on grounds of jurisdiction, as one terminus is in another state, arguing the Tribunal improperly assumed powers to fix termini instead of remanding the matter.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Regional Transport Authority failed to comply with the Tribunal's direction to consider an affidavit regarding termini and that the Secretary improperly assumed powers to issue permits.
Issues: Whether the Regional Transport Authority had the jurisdiction to grant permits for a route with a terminus in another state and whether the Tribunal exceeded its authority in modifying the permit terms.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the authority to grant permits resides exclusively with the Regional Transport Authority, and the Tribunal's directives must be followed without delegation of powers.
Final Decision: The permits and timings issued were suspended, directing the Regional Transport Authority to properly consider the affidavit as per the Tribunal's instructions.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 26th day of August, 2022 Shaji P.Chaly, J.
This writ appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P.
(C)No.23263 of 2022 challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 26.07.2022. The subject matter arises under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 .
2. The brief material facts for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:
2.1. The appellant challenged the grant of three regular stage carriage permits issued to the 3rd respondent namely one Sunil Sebastian, on the route Sulthanbathery-Pattavayal on the ground that one of the termini of the route namely Pattavayal is in the State of Tamil Nadu and hence, the Regional Transport Authority, Wayanad - the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to grant permit on interstate route, before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal by preferring M.V.A.R.P.Nos.31 of 2022, 32 of 2022 and 27 of 2022. It appears while admitting the revisions, the Tribunal granted a stay. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent entered appearance in the revision petitions and filed an afÏdavit, and based on that afÏdavit and on the submissions of the standing counsel for the Regional Transport Authority, the Tribunal disposed of the revision petitions fixing the termini of the route as Tamil Nadu Forest Check Post and directed the Regional Transport Authority to grant the permit by fixing the termini of the route in that manner.
2.2. The case projected by the appellant before the writ court was that the Tamil Nadu Forest Check Post is situated in the State of Tamil Nadu and, therefore, the proper course could have been a remand of the matter to the Regional Transport Authority for fresh consideration instead of Tribunal fixing the ‘termini’. It is also pointed out that the direction issued by the Tribunal is against Rule 20 of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1988. According to the appellant, by issuing the directions, the Tribunal has assumed the powers of the original authority while issuing impugned Exhibits P11, P12 and P13 orders passed by the Tribunal.
2.3. That apart, it is contended that based on the directions issued by the Tribunal, the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Wayanad has issued a notice for timing conference to settle the timings of the route namely Sulthanbathery-Pattavayal evident from Exhibit P14 dated 12.07.2022. The case projected by the appellant is that only after a decision is taken by the Regional Transport Authority regarding the route and its termini, the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority has got the power to settle the timings. That apart, it is contended that the attempt is to settle the timings in the original route and not even in the modified route proposed by the Tribunal also. Accordingly, it is contended that the Secretary RTA - 2nd respondent is colluding with the 3rd respondent stage carriage operator and is taking hasty steps to get the permit issued as granted in Exhibit P5 dated 20.12.2021, Exhibit P6 dated 21.12.2021 and Exhibit P7 dated 21.12.2021; the proceedings issued by the Regional Transport Authority. It was with the above projections, the writ petition was filed.
3. The learned single Judge, after taking into consideration the contentions raised in the writ petition, held that the appellant has not made out any case for interference with Exhibits P11 to P13 orders dated 15.06.2022 passed by the Tribunal. Relevant portions of the judgment reads thus:
“5. It would be apt to extract one of the decisions of the Tribunal while disposing of the three revision petitions and the same reads thus:
“ORDER Counsel for R4 submitted that he filed afÏdavit as directed by this Tribunal. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that the last point within State of Kerala is Tamil Nadu Forest Check Post. R1 is directed to consider the afÏdavit filed by the fourth respondent and make clear that permit granted by mentioning the land mark Tamil Nadu Forest Check Post in the permit as te
