Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
SHAJI P.CHALY, J
THOMAS – Appellant
Versus
STAT ERNAKULAM – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 19403/2016
MotorVehicles - Transport Permits - Motor Vehicles Act - Sections 104, 87(1)(d) - The court analyzed the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act regarding permit issuance, emphasizing the significance of overlapping routes and the need for compliance with notified schemes, ultimately concluding that the Tribunal's rejection of the temporary permit was arbitrary.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner applied for a temporary permit to operate a stage carriage on the Parippu - Kottayam route, which was initially denied due to two schemes. The Tribunal upheld the denial, citing an unacceptable overlap with the Ernakulam - Thekkady route, despite previous approvals for town services.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tribunal erred in interpreting the overlap provisions and failed to account for the continuation of city services under existing permits, leading to a conclusion that warranted revisiting the denied temporary permit application.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal's order denying the temporary permit due to overlapping with a notified route was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the Tribunal misapplied the law concerning route overlaps and failed to recognize the ongoing validity of previous permits, which entitled the petitioner to a temporary permit.
Final Decision: W.P.(C) No.19403/2016 is allowed; W.P.(C) No.20602/2016 is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Captioned writ petitions are intrinsically connected and therefore, they are disposed of together.
2. W.P(C) No.19403/2016 is filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam to re-consider Ext.P7 order passed in M.P.No.218/2016 in MVARP No.63/2016 dated 3.5.2016 and also a direction to the 3rd respondent to grant and issue temporary permit on the route Parippu - Kottayam as town service, in respect of stage carriage bearing No.KlL-07 AX 4946 pending final orders in the revision petition before the Tribunal. W.P.(C) No.20602/2016 is filed by KSRTC, challenging that part of Ext.P7 order granting partial relief to the petitioner in the other writ petition.
3. Brief facts for the disposal of the writ petition are thus; petitioner was the holder of regular permit on the route Parippu - Kottayam, which was granted and issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam as town service. The period of validity of the regular permit was from26.03.2015. The application for renewal was submitted at a time and temporary permits were being issued in favour of the petitioner under Section 87(1)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act and the last of the said permit was valid till 25.3.2016, evident from Ext.P2. The application for renewal was considered by the Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam at its meeting held on 8.2.2016 and it was rejected on two grounds; (a) offending of Kottayam - Neendoor Complete Exclusion Scheme (b) offending of Ernakulam - Thekkady Supplementation Scheme, as per Ext.P3 proceedings.
4. Thus aggrieved by Ext.P3, petitioner has filed revision before the 1st respondent Tribunal. The 4th respondent has filed objection to the revision petition, to which, petitioner has submitted a reply along with relevant notification dated
14.7.2009 relating to supplementation scheme, that were relied on by the 4th respondent and also the draft scheme dated 8.2.2016. It is the contention of the petitioner that private stage carriage operators can operate only in terms of the schemes provided such as; (a) Complete Exclusion Scheme (b) Complete Exclusion Scheme with exception clause (c) Partial exclusion Schemes (d) Supplementation Schemes. According to the petitioner, in the case at hand, the schemes involved are complete exclusion scheme and supplementation scheme. The complete exclusion Kottayam - Neendoor is total exclusion scheme, which prohibits operation as mofussil service on the route covered by scheme. As regarding the Ernakulam-Thekkady scheme, it is a supplementation scheme dated 14.7.2009, wherein there are two things. One is relating to grant of fresh permits and the second is saving clause of existing permits.
5. Petitioner has preferred a petition seeking temporary permit, which was dismissed as per Ext.P7 order dated
3.5.2016. According to the petitioner, in the first half of Ext.P7 order with respect to Kottayam - Neendoor Scheme, it is found in favour of the petitioner. But in second limb, found against the petitioner, wherein it is held that the overlapping exceeds 5%. According to the petitioner, the 1st respondent Tribunal ought to have found that clause 5 of the notification dated 14.7.2009 is actually relating to grant of fresh regular permit application and not the clause applicable to renewal of permit. Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioner that the Tribunal went completely wrong in upholding Ernakulam - Thekkady Scheme. That apart it is contended by the petitioner that as per the terms of the scheme itself, petitioner is entitled for grant of temporary permit as the regular permit in question is one issued after 2006. It is also contended by the petitioner that, the reliance placed by the Tribunal in the judgment reported in Martin v. STAT [2013 KHC 543] has no applicability to the facts and circumstances of the case, as petitioner sought for permit in terms of the scheme itself. What is considered in Martin V. STAT is granting of fresh permits and th
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
