IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 22949 of 2006(F)
1. I.C.SHAJI, S/O.CHANDRAN, IRUDUKAVIL
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY,
3. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI (SR.)
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :13/09/2007
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
===============
W.P.(C) NO. 22949 OF 2006
====================
Dated this the 13th day of September, 2007
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is a Stage Carriage operator, who had a
permit in the route Ponnani-Kozhikode-Guruvayur for the
period 2000 to 2005. On its expiry, the petitioner applied
for a fresh permit and by Ext.P1, the RTA, Malappuram
granted permit for the aforesaid route for the period from
29/11/05 to 28/11/2010, subject to counter signature of
sister RTAs at Kozhikode and Trichur. Ext.P1(2) is the
consequential proceedings issued by the Secretary, RTA,
Malappuram. By Ext.P4 order, the RTA, Kozhikode rejected
the counter signature on the ground that a portion of the
route lies in the notified scheme Kottayam-Kozhikode and
that the route is well served. Appeal filed to the Tribunal
was also rejected by Ext.P7 judgment. The Tribunal has
stated that there is overlapping in the scheme covered area
WPC 22949/06
: 2 :
for more than 10 kms. It is further stated that as it was
not an existing permit, but a fresh permit, the petitioner
was not entitled to the benefit of the Clause 4 of Ext.P5
notification, which provided that existing private operators
will be permitted to continue in the scheme covered area in
question. It is in this background, this writ petition has
been filed praying for quashing Exhibits P4 and P7 and to
direct the RTA, Kozhikode to consider the question of
counter signature and for other consequential reliefs.
2. During the course of hearing, the finding in
Exhibits P4 and P7 that there is overlapping for more than
10 kms in the Kottayam-Kozhikode notified route is not
disputed. The only contention raised was that since Ext.P5
notification provided that, existing private operators will be
permitted to continue, the petitioner is entitled to be
granted the permit as he was an existing private operator.
This contention is raised on the basis that Ext.P5 notification
is dated 9th May 2006, whereas the period of Ext.P1 permit
WPC 22949/06
: 3 :
is from 29/11/05. Though this contention would appear to
be attractive at the first blush, I do not find any substance
in this. The permit granted was subject to counter signature
by sister RTAs at Kozhikode and Trichur. By Ext.P4, the
RTA, Kozhikode declined the counter signature in the permit
and this decision has been confirmed by the Tribunal in
Ext.P7. As a result of this, the petitioner did not have a
permit at all, after the initial permit expired early in 2005.
Therefore, when the notification came into force on 9th May
2006, petitioner did not have a permit to be an existing
operator to claim the benefit that is available in Ext.P5. In
my view, petitioner was not an existing operator and
therefore the protection clause in Ext.P5 is not available to
him.
Writ petition lacks merit and it is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.
Rp