Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 25217
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Sathish Ninan, J
P.K.USMAN – Appellant
Versus
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM – Respondent
WP(C)/38552/2017
SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU, SRI.VINEETH KURIAKOSE, SMT.SHEEJA C.S., SR. GOVT. PLEADER
Authorities must consider current traffic and public transport needs as crucial factors in permit applications, rather than rely solely on outdated data or arbitrary limits.
Headnote:
Permit - Autorickshaw Service - Motor Vehicles Act - Section 74(3)(a) - Judicial observations clarified the criteria for granting permits, emphasizing the importance of current circumstances over outdated reports, consequently impacting the decision regarding halting place applications.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, autorickshaw drivers, challenged the refusal of permit applications, one for a change of halting place within a municipality and the other objecting to additional permits without sufficient halting facilities.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the grounds for refusal were incorrect, especially regarding the absence of a proper application and the misinterpretation of current traffic conditions. It ordered reconsideration of the application based on fresh materials.
Issues: Whether the refusal of the permit application was justified based on the cited grounds including outdated traffic reports and the status of halting facilities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that factors like local conditions and the need for public transport must be assessed, rejecting grounds based on outdated reports or arbitrary limits on permits as set by the government.
Final Decision: The applications were ordered to be reconsidered afresh by the authority based on updated information.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners in these writ petitions are autorickshaw drivers. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.38552/2017 is aggrieved by the denial of his request for change of halting place to Kottappady, which is within the municipal limits. The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.6784 of 2017 seek for a direction not to grant further permits within the municipal limits without providing sufficient halting facilities.
2. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.38552/2017 was issued with Ext.P1 permit with halting place at Koottilangadi which is a Panchayat area. He is a resident of Malappuram municipality. As per Ext.P2 application dated 04.05.2015, he sought for change of halting place to Kottappady which is within the municipality limits. The application was rejected by the Regional Transport Authority in its meeting held on 30.05.2017. The concluding portion of the order of rejection reads thus:-
“Hence, we have examined this application in detail:
1) The applicant has not remitted the required fee and there is no formal application for variation of permit condition as prescribed by the Act and Rules.
2) The applicant is now plying service in Malappuram Municipal area and now he is asking for a change of halting place within the Municipal limits.
3) Reports of the Motor Vehicle Inspectors were also considered as per law.
4) The respective local self-government authority has submitted that parking space is full in the requested place.
5) A writ petition is pending consideration on this matter before the Hon. High Court of Kerala. This authority is of the common view that the application for variation cannot be granted as per the availability of parking place in the requested pace and also as per the traffic volume and hence rejected.”
3. The petitioner had submitted application in the proper form. A copy of the same is produced as Ext.P2 in the writ petition. Therefore, the finding entered into by the authority that there is no proper application, is not correct. If the required fee was not paid, it was open for the authority to call upon the petitioner to pay the required fee. Coming to the second ground of refusal, the statement that the applicant is now plying service in the municipal area is apparently not correct. What he has sought for is, for a permit to ply the autorickshaw within the municipal area. A reading of the proceedings show that, reports of two M.V.I's were obtained with regard to the halting places available and the congestion of the traffic. The other reason stated is regarding the pendency of W.P.(C) No.6784/2017. The statement in the proceedings that there is an interim order in the writ petition disabling consideration of the petitioner's request is not correct. There is no such order in the said writ petition. It is that writ petition which is being considered jointly in this judgment.
4. That there is no notification in terms of Section 74 (3)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act with respect to the Malappuram District, is not in dispute. This Court inRajesh v. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority [2014 (3) KLT 341] and Sijo Devassy and Others v. Joint Regional Transport Officer, Angamaly and Others [2016 (3) KLT SN 17] has held that, mere existence of a number of permits or the decision to restrict the grant based on numbers cannot be a ground for rejection of an application for permit, since such limits could be prescribed only by the state Government in a notification under (3)(a). This Court further held that the population in an area, the need for public transport, mode of transport ordinarily used by the majority of the residents of the area, the number of roads and the condition of roads, traffic congestion caused by indiscriminate parking etc., are significant and relevant factors to be reckoned by the authority while considering applications for grant of permit.
5. As noticed above, insofar as the grievance of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.38552/2017 is concerned, many of the findings in the proceedings of the RTA are n
