Back
2007 Supreme(Online)(KER) 23996
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
S. SIRI JAGAN, J
K.K.LAKSHMANAN – Appellant
Versus
THE R.T.A., ERNAKULAM – Respondent
WP(C)/14376/2007
Sri.G.Prabhakaran, Government Pleader Sri. I.V. Promod, Sri. K. Prabhakaran – SC for K.S.R.T.C.
The R.T.A. cannot appeal decisions made by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal as it is not an aggrieved party under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Headnote:
Permit - Transport - Motor Vehicles Act - Section 90(2) - The court ruled that the R.T.A. lacks the authority to appeal a decision made by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal since it cannot be considered an aggrieved party, thereby directing compliance with the original order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a regular permit for a Stage Carriage vehicle. The R.T.A. initially rejected the application but later, a tribunal ordered a grant. However, the R.T.A. suspended action, citing the need for adherence to a published scheme under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined that the R.T.A., not being an aggrieved party, lacked the standing to appeal the tribunal's decision, thus reinforcing the mandate for the R.T.A. to comply with the tribunal's order within a stipulated timeframe.
Issues: Whether the R.T.A. can appeal against the State Transport Appellate Tribunal's order when it is not an aggrieved party under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The R.T.A. does not possess the locus standi to challenge the tribunal's decision since it cannot be deemed aggrieved, affirming the tribunal's direction to issue the permit.
Final Decision: The court directed the R.T.A. to implement the tribunal's order within two months.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner applied for the grant of a regular permit on the route Kothad-Perumannur Junction for his Stage Carriage Vehicle KL- 7/K 6010 which was rejected by the R.T.A. Ernakulam. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal in M.V.A.A. No.26/07 allowed the appeal and directed the R.T.A. to grant the permit. Subsequently, the R.T.A. in its meeting held on 7.2.07 adjourned the same stating that as per Section 90 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act , when a scheme has been published, the R.T.A. can grant a permit in accordance with the scheme only and since the S.T.A.T. has not considered this specific contention, an appeal has to be filed. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said action of the R.T.A. According to the petitioner, the R.T.A. is not competent to file an appeal since as per the Act the appeal can be filed only by an aggrieved party and the R.T.A is not an aggrieved party. The petitioner therefore seeks a direction to the respondent to grant regular permit to the petitioner's Stage Carriage vehicle by implementing the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal.
W.P.(c)No.14376/07 2
2. The learned Government pleader on instruction submits that the possibility of filing the appeal is under consideration and therefore the permit cannot be issued now. In a similar writ petition (Civil)No.5772/07, a learned Single Judge of this Court held as follows:
“The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, by Exhibit P1 judgment dated 23.11.2006, directed the RTA, Ernakulam, to grant permit to the petitioner on the route Kurisumudy – Angamaly – Manjikkad, subject to settlement of timings. The RTA considered the same and adjourned the application for filing appeal against the order of the STAT. Against Exhibit P1, no appeal is provided under the Motor Vehicles Act . If what is meant by the RTA is to file a Writ Petition before this Court, a petition at the instance of the RTA is not maintainable as the lower authority cannot be said to be aggrieved, if its decision faces a reversal at the hands of the STAT. In view of the above position, the first respondent is directed to implement Exhibit P1 within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The above direction of this Court will not affect the right of the State Government to challenge Exhibit P1 in appropriate proceedings. If any Writ petition is filed against Exhibit P1 by the State, the grant of the permit made pursuant to this judgment will be subject to any interim order or final orders passed in that Writ petition”.
3. I am in full agreement with the judgment of the learned Judge and therefore I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition also in terms of the said judgment.
4. Accordingly, I direct the 1st respondent to implement Ext.P1 judgment of the S.T.A.T. within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. This direction will W.P.(c)No.14376/07 3 not affect the right of the State Government to challenge Ext.P1 in appropriate proceedings. If the State Government decides to initiate any such proceedings against Ext.P1, the grant of permit made pursuant to this judgment would be subject to any interim order or final order passed in such proceedings.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.14376/07 4
