Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 57429
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J
RAMESH BABU – Appellant
Versus
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KANNUR – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 13319 OF 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.V.Gopinathan Nair
For the Respondents: Lavaraj M.G., Renu B Raj, O.D.Sivadas, Devi R.
The authority must reconsider permit timing adjustments in accordance with prior regulations and grant the parties due process.
Headnote:In the context of the relevant regulations, the petitioner contested the cancellation of a varied permit by the Regional Transport Authority and the dismissal of his appeal by the Tribunal on the grounds of improper timing allowances. The court found that prior regulations governed the matter. The court concluded that the Secretary must re-evaluate and adjust the timings in line with earlier grants within six weeks.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to the cancellation of the permit. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 5) |
| 2. acceptance of tribunal's findings. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. directive for re-evaluation of timings. (Para 8 , 9) |
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner challenges Ext.P6 proceedings of the Secretary RTA, Kannur, dated 07.03.2022, as well as Ext.P9 order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam, in M.V.A.R.P No.26 of 2022. The petitioner was the holder of a regular permit, operating on the route Kannur – Pariyaram with stage carriage KL-58/C 1774. He had applied for a variation of permit by extension from Irunnavu Road to Payyangadi via Mattual, Madakkara 18 Kms with trip curtailments and by change of halting place from Cherukunu to Mattul. By seeking such variation on the portion Kannur, Payyangai, Madakkara and Mattul, there will be 3 trips.
2. The application submitted for variation was granted as per Ext.Ext.P1(a). Thereafter, a timing conference was scheduled on 24.10.2019, and after hearing all the stakeholders, a set of timings was finalised, and a varied permit was issued thereafter, as seen from Ext.P2.
3. Ext.P2 was challenged by the 3rd respondent by filing M.V.A.R.P No.33 of 2020 before the Tribunal. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent, Secretary, through Ext.P4 order dated 24.02.2022, revised the timings granted as per Ext.P2. On the same date, the Secretary issued another proceeding, deciding to place the matter in the next RTA meeting. 4. Later on 07.03.2022, through Ext.P6 order, the Secretary found that in the timing conference held on 24.10.2019, mistakenly three trips were issued and after a consideration based on a complaint received from the 3rd respondent, cancelled Exts.P2, P4 and P5, through its decision dated 07.03.2022. This was challenged by the petitioner before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam, in M.V.A.R.P No.26 of 2022.
5. Though an interim order was initially granted, staying the operation, through Ext.P9, final judgment, accepting the contention of the 3rd respondent that the timings could have been issued only based on the proceedings dated 27.09.2018 and that the operator could not have operated trips more than what was granted, dismissed the revision petition.
6. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner disputes the correctness of the said finding, it was the contention of the 3rd respondent, which was accepted by the Tribunal.
7. It is to be noticed that Ext.P2 order was initially challenged by the 3rd respondent by filing M.V.A.R.P No.33 of 2020; the same was dismissed based on the correction made by the 2nd respondent through Ext.P6 order dated 07.03.2022.
8. In view of the above, I do not think that any purpose will be served by remitting the matter back to the Tribunal, more so as the revision preferred by the 3rd respondent herein stood closed by the passing of Ext.P6 order.
9. Under such circumstances and in the interest of justice, I am inclined to direct the 2nd respondent, Secretary RTA, Kannur, to settle the timings, after hearing the petitioners, the 3rd respondent and the additional 4th respondent, strictly in terms of the grant made under Ext.P1(a). It will be open to the petitioners and the respondents to place such materials before the 2nd respondent to substantiate their contentions, which will be adverted to, and a speaking order passed. The 2nd respondent shall pass fresh orders as directed above within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The status quo as on date shall be maintained till orders are passed as directed above.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
