IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 30238 of 2008(Y)
1. M.P. JOY, MANGALATH
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SECRETARY,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :16/12/2008
O R D E R
V.GIRI,J.
-------------------------
W.P ( C) Nos.19989, 30238,31182, 31827,
33224, 34368 and 35605 of 2008
--------------------------
Dated this the 16th December, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Common issue which arises for consideration in all
these cases relates to the alleged delay on the part of the
Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram in
dealing with applications for grant of regular permit, or
settling timings in relation to varied permits or dealing
with applications for revision of existing timings. It was
found that there is a persistent complaint as regards the
undue delay on the part of the Regional Transport
Authority, Malappuram to deal with applications filed by
operators invoking provisions of the Kerala Motor
Vehicles Act and Rules.
2. Learned Government Pleader was therefore
requested to get instructions as to what was the reason
for such delay.
3. A statement has been filed by the respondent
and thereafter reply affidavit has been filed by the
W.P ( C) Nos.19989, 30238,31182, 31827,
33224, 34368 and 35605 of 2008
2
petitioner. It is contended that for several months together
timing conferences were not convened by the Regional
Transport Officer, Malappuram. The Joint Regional
Transport Officer is burdened with work and therefore is
not in a position to convene timing conferences. Statistics
in a tabular form showing the pendency of applications
have been given in the said statement. Reference has been
made to the directions issued by this Court on several
occasions, in individual cases, to deal with applications in a
time bound manner and this in turns disables the
Secretary , Regional Transport Authority in maintaining a
list of priority with reference to any certain date.
4. Taking note of all these factors, learned
Government Pleader was again requested to get
instructions as to whether the Government can appoint on
an ad hoc basis, an additional officer to clear the arrears
and to see that the Secretary, RTA is in a position to deal
with applications which come on a regular basis.
5. Learned Government Pleader submits that the
Government has decided to make available the services of
W.P ( C) Nos.19989, 30238,31182, 31827,
33224, 34368 and 35605 of 2008
3
one Sri.K.N.Gopi, Regional Transport Officer (nationalised
centre), Thiruvananthapuram, on deputation to assist the
Regional Transport Officer, Malappuram for conducting
timing conferences. I appreciate the expeditious manner in
which action has been taken in this regard by the Transport
Commissioner and by the learned Government Pleader
Smt.Sudha Devi.
6. In the result, respondents are directed to see
that the services of Sri.K.N.Gopi is made available for the
purpose of convening timing conferences and settling the
timings, of different stage carriage services.
7. Petitioners and learned Government Pleader
have made submissions as to the manner in which the
applications will have to be prioritized. It is submitted
that the applications for settlement of timings, which have
to be dealt with by the Regional Transport Officer would
broadly come under the following heads:
W.P ( C) Nos.19989, 30238,31182, 31827,
33224, 34368 and 35605 of 2008
4
1. Fresh grant of permits
2. Pursuant to variation of permits
3. On applications for revisions for existing
timings.
8. It is also admitted by counsel on both sides that
the number of applications for fresh grant are quite limited.
This may not really be a burden on any office . Major
portion of applications relate to the request made for
revision of existing timings and settlement of timings
consequential upon the grant of varied permits. It is only
appropriate that the plea for settlement of timings
consequent upon variation of routes be dealt with on a
priority, ahead of the applications for revision of existing
timings. Therefore, the competent authority may prioritize
the applications in the following manner.
(1). Settlement of timings relatable to
fresh grant of permits.
(2) Settlement of timings consequential
upon variation of permits (either extension or
curtailment as the case may be).
(3) Revision of existing timings.
Priority may therefore be given to the first category ahead
of the second category and the second category ahead of
W.P ( C) Nos.19989, 30238,31182, 31827,
33224, 34368 and 35605 of 2008
5
the third category.
9. It is only appropriate that the services of
Sri.K.N.Gopi, be made available immediately for the
purpose of convening timing conferences and dealing with
the request for settlement of timings in the manner
aforementioned. In other words, till the existing arrears
are wiped off, no other duty may be assigned to
Sri.K.N.Gopi. This, of course does not mean the existing
incumbent in the office of the Secretary, Regional
Transport Authority, Malappuram shall not take up the
aforementioned work as part of his normal statutory duties.
10. Sri.K.V.Gopinathan Nair, learned counsel for one
of the petitioners in these cases submits that in the case of
fresh grant or variation of permits, settlement of timings
need not be deferred or be included in the same list of
priority, if there are no objections. If there are absolutely
objection whatsoever in any particular centre for a fresh
grant or grant of permit on variation pursuant to orders
passed by the Regional Transport Authority, the proposal
for settlement of timings in relation to such permits should
W.P ( C) Nos.19989, 30238,31182, 31827,
33224, 34368 and 35605 of 2008
6
be published. If it is found that there are no objections to
the proposed timings published in that regard, then it is
open to the competent officer to deal with such cases,
distinctly from cases where there are objections to the
proposed timings, since obviously such objections will have
to be considered in a timing conference.
The aforementioned directions are applicable to all
these cases in general. I now propose to take the writ
petitions separately. I dispose of the following writ
petitions.
WP(C) No.31182/2008:
Petitioner was granted a regular permit to operate on
the route Melechelari-Feroke-Idimoozhikkal in relation to
stage carriage vehicle bearing Reg. NoKL-10/P 8943.
Petitioner is aggrieved by the delay in the issuance of
permit. Respondent shall proceed to issue a permit on the
basis of Exhibit-P1 decision taken by the RTA and settle
the timings including the issue regarding settlement of
timings relatable to Exhibit-P1 in a list to be drawn up
pursuant to the directions issued herein above.
W.P ( C) Nos.19989, 30238,31182, 31827,
33224, 34368 and 35605 of 2008
7
Obviously, it will be eligible to dealt with on a date earlier
to the presently scheduled date on account of the posting
of an Officer for the purpose of expeditiously dealing with
such matters.
WP(C ) No.33224/2008
Petitioner’s complaint is regarding non-settlement of
timings in relation to a fresh grant of permit. Fresh date
for a timing conference may be issued in relation to this
judgment and timings may be settled in relation to the
stage carriage vehicle bearing Reg. No.KL-10N/6827
pursuant to Exhibit-P2 going by the list of priority to be
drawn up in the manner aforementioned.
WP(C)No.19989/2008
Issue raised in this case relates to the request made
by the petitioner for revisions of timings pursuant to
Exhibit-P2 judgment of the State Transport Appellate
Tribunal dated 13.3.2008. Petitioner’s application may be
included in the list of cases to be drawn up pursuant to
directions issued herein above under the category of
revision of existing timings and it shall be dealt with going
W.P ( C) Nos.19989, 30238,31182, 31827,
33224, 34368 and 35605 of 2008
8
by the said list of priority.
WPC (C) No.31827/2008
Issue raised in this case relates to an application for
settlement of timings pursuant to Exhibit-P1 for a varied
permit. The said application may be dealt with in
accordance with the directions issued herein above.
WP(C) No.30238/2008
The request made in this case relates to settlement of
timings pursuant to regular variation granted under
Exhibit-P1. According to the learned counsel for the
petitioner, there will be no objection from any other
operator. If so, it shall be dealt with in accordance with the
directions issued herein above.
WP(C) No.35605/2008
Issue raised in this case relates to the settlement of
timings pursuant to Exhibit-P1 directing the grant of a
permit on variation as sanctioned by the RTA. Timings
may be settled as per the directions issued herein above.
W.P ( C) Nos.19989, 30238,31182, 31827,
33224, 34368 and 35605 of 2008
9
WP(C) No.34368/2008
Issue raised in this case relates to the settlement of
timings pursuant to Exhibit-P1 directing the grant of a
permit on variation as sanctioned by the RTA. Timings
may be settled as per the directions issued herein as above.
All the writ petitions are disposed of with the above
directions.
(V.GIRI,JUDGE)
ma
W.P ( C) Nos.19989, 30238,31182, 31827,
33224, 34368 and 35605 of 2008
10
W.P ( C) Nos.19989, 30238,31182, 31827,
33224, 34368 and 35605 of 2008
11