IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 14586 of 2010(W)
1. NANDAKUMAR, AGED 33,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT
3. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
4. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
For Petitioner :SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :03/06/2010
O R D E R
K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
------------------------------------------------------------
W.P(C) NO: 14586 OF 2010 W
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd June, 2010.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P6
judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT for short)
directing him to submit a fresh application for the grant of a
permit. The contention of the petitioner is that he had filed an
affidavit before the STAT requesting that a permit be granted on
his application, curtailing the route with respect to which he had
applied for permit.
2. The petitioner had submitted an application for the issue
of a regular permit to operate on the route, North Parur-Thevara
Junction via Cherai, Narakkal, Kalamukku, Gosri Bridges, Ernakulam
High Court Junction, Menaka, Boat Jetty and Pallimukku in respect
of his stage carriage No: KL-07/AN 567. The application was
rejected on the ground that for a distance of 6 km, the route was
overlapping the notified route, Trivandrum-Kannur, approved by
notification No: 42/09/Trans dated 14/7/09. The petitioner
challenged the rejection of his application for regular permit before
the STAT in MVAA No: 538/2009. The petitioner filed an affidavit
dated 12/3/2010 before the STAT seeking to limit his services up
WPC 14586/2010 2
to Ernakulam High Court junction, thus avoiding the objectionable
overlapping. In the light of the affidavit filed by the petitioner, the
STAT found that the petitioner’s request should be considered
afresh. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed reserving the right of
the petitioner to file a fresh application avoiding the objectionable
overlapping. Such a modified application if made, was directed to
be considered by the RTA, Ernakulam.
3. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the STAT erred
in directing the petitioner to make a fresh application. The proper
course was for the STAT to have remanded the entire matter in view
of the affidavit filed by the petitioner. My attention is drawn to
Section 72(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred
to as the ‘Act’ for short) to contend that the Regional Transport
Authority (RTA) is sufficiently empowered to grant the permit with
such modifications as it deems fit. The only restriction on the
above power is that such permit shall not be granted in respect of a
route or area that is not specified in the application.
4. The contentions of the counsel for the petitioner are
opposed by the learned Govt. Pleader. He relies on a Division Bench
decision of this Court reported in Girija Devi v. K.T.Mathew (1991
(1)KLT 353. In the said decision it has been held that the RTA has
no power to grant a permit by varying the route to avoid an
WPC 14586/2010 3
objectionable overlapping. At any rate it is pointed out that the
STAT has only directed the petitioner to make a fresh application,
which does not cause any prejudice to him.
5. I notice that the application submitted by the petitioner
was rejected for the reason that there was objectionable
overlapping on a notified route. Therefore, the action of the
authority refusing to grant the permit cannot be found fault with.
In the light of the fresh affidavit filed by the petitioner, the STAT
felt that it was better that the petitioner submitted a fresh
application. Therefore, he has been granted the liberty to submit a
fresh application avoiding the objectionable overlapping and the
authority has been directed to consider the same. I do not find any
reason to interfere with the above direction of the STAT. The
exercise of discretion by the STAT cannot be characterised as
perverse or unjustified. In the above view of the matter, I do not
find any grounds to grant any of the reliefs prayed for in the writ
petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
K. SURENDRA MOHAN
Judge
jj
WPC 14586/2010 4
WPC 14586/2010 5