Court enforces prior liberty to approach Transport Authority for grievances on permit conditions, directing consideration.

JUDGMENT

The petitioners are stage carriage operators.

They along with other stage carriage operators had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.32223/2025 challenging Ext.P1 decision of the Traffic Regulatory Committee, insofar as it interdicted the stage carriages from using the Stadium Bus Stand in Palakkad Town. This Court, by Ext.P2 judgment dated 20.11.2025, dismissed the writ petition. The relevant portions thereof read as follows:

“6. The RTA has taken a decision on 22.08.2025, which reads as follows:

“This is a request of Secretary, Palakkad Municipality for sanction for functioning of Municipal Bus stand after reconstruction. This request was considered in the open forum of RTA held on 19.06.2025 vide Supplementary item no.1 in the agenda & the decision on this matter was adjourned for resolving the shortcomings mentioned in the decision by Municipal authorities. Intimation regarding the rectification was received from the Municipal Authorities on 08.08.2025. In compliance with the direction of this authority, a combined inspection by a team comprising Police, Motor Vehicles Deptt & PWD was conducted. The combined inspection conducted on 13.08.2025 reveals that all shortcomings except installation of CCTV Cameras were resolved. Considering the above combined inspection report, approval is granted for functioning of Palakkad Municipal Bus stand as per Rule 207 of KMV Rules, 1989, subject to installation of CCTV Cameras in the bus stand building.”

7. Taking note of the fact that the approval has been granted for the functioning of the Palakkad Municipal Bus Stand under Rule 207 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 , the claim of the petitioners that Ext.P6, which restricts the use of the Stadium Bus Stand, is wrong, cannot be accepted. In view of the fact that the earlier arrangement was only a temporary measure, as seen from the judgment of this Court, the petitioners’ request for continuing the temporary measures even after the completion of the reconstruction cannot be heeded.

8. Under such circumstances, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. If the petitioners are aggrieved by any of the conditions in Ext.P6, which, according to them, were against the conditions of the permits granted, it will be open to the petitioners to approach the Transport Authority concerned, who shall look into the same in accordance with law.”

2. Thus, as seen from paragraph No.8 of the judgment, liberty was granted to the petitioners to approach the Transport Authority concerned, if they are aggrieved by any of the conditions in Ext.P1. Aggrieved by the conditions in Ext.P1, they have preferred Ext.P3 representation before the 2^nd respondent. The 2^nd respondent has refused to place the matter before the Regional Transport Authority stating that the challenge against Ext.P1 has already been dismissed by Ext.P2 judgment.

3. Heard Sri.P.Deepak, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2. In the nature of the order I propose to pass, notice to the 3^rd respondent is dispensed with.

4. As rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, this Court had given liberty to the petitioners to approach the Transport Authority concerned, if they are aggrieved by any of the conditions in Ext.P1. In the said circumstances, there will be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to place Ext.P3 representation before the 1^st respondent RTA in the light of Ext.P2 judgment within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and the 1^st respondent shall consider the same, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months therefrom.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.