IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 27041 of 2008(T)
1. P.GANGADHARAN, S/O.PONNUCHAMI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT
3. SHRI.K.RAVINDRAKUMAR, PROPRIETOR,
4. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
For Respondent :SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :17/12/2009
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
==================
W.P.(C).No. 27041 of 2008
==================
Dated this the 17th day of December, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is a stage carriage operator. He applied for a
regular permit on the route Palakkad-Palakkad. The application was
considered by the 1st respondent-RTA in its meeting held on 3.8.2007
and permit was granted subject to settlement of timings. Thereafter,
the RTA received a complaint from the 3rd respondent to the effect
that similar request of another operator was rejected in the very same
meeting of the 1st respondent on the ground that the route overlaps a
notified route. Therefore, on the basis of that complaint, the RTA
considered the matter again on 17.9.2007 and, after issuing notice
under Section 86 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act and hearing the
petitioner, the RTA cancelled the permit granted to the petitioner on
the ground that the permit was granted on a mistaken fact by reason
of suppression of fact by the petitioner, regarding violation of a notified
route. The petitioner filed M.V.A.A.No.64/2008 before the State
Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam. That appeal was rejected by
Ext.P7. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P4 order of the RTA cancelling
the permit and Ext.P7 order of the STAT dismissing the appeal.
2. The petitioner raises three contentions. First is that Ext.P4
amounts to review of the RTA’s own earlier order, for which the RTA
2
does not have power. The second is that the 3rd respondent on whose
complaint the action was initiated, has no locus standi to challenge the
permit issued to an operator in view of the decision of this Court in
Binu Chacko v. R.T.A., Pathanamthitta [2006 (2) KLT 172]. Therefore,
the action of the RTA on the basis of the complaint of the 3rd
respondent is without jurisdiction. The third is that the petitioner is not
in any way responsible for the mistake committed by the RTA and
therefore, Section 86 could no have been invoked even assuming that
Ext.P4 order of the RTA was under Section 86.
3. The learned Government Pleader opposes the contentions
of the petitioner. She points out that Ext.P4 order has been expressly
stated to be passed under Section 86(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act,
although in the agenda, the word, “review” is used. Secondly, she
would contend that simply because the suppression of fact by the
petitioner was brought to the notice of the RTA by the 3rd respondent,
the RTA is not incompetent to take into account a complaint filed by
the 3rd respondent to invoke the powers under Section 86 of the Motor
Vehicles Act. Regarding the third contention, she would contend that
the petitioner was very well aware of the fact that the route overlaps a
notified route and therefore, clearly there was misrepresentation of
material fact, which is certainly a ground for invocation of Section 86.
4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
3
5. I do not find any merit in any of the contentions of the
petitioner. It is true that in Ext.P4 the word, “review” is used in the
portion where agenda for the meeting is extracted. But the decision
reads thus:
“Heard. the counsel representing the objector Sri.K.Ravindrakumar
contradictory decisions were taken by the RTA held on 03.08.2007 in
item No.26 and 44 respectively, even though the common portion in both
of the route applied for vide items mentioned above, that is from
Palakkad Municipal Bus Stand to Tharekkad overlaps the Notified route of
Palakkad-Kannur. The Regional Transport Authority may cancel a permit
if it was granted by a misrepresentation as mentioned in section 86(1)
(d) of M.V. Act, 1988. Hence the erroneously taken decision in item No.26
of the RTA dated 03.08.2007 ie. grant of regular permit in respect of S/C
kL.10/P 2207 is cancelled as per section 86(1) (d) of MV Act 1988.”
It gives no room for any doubt that the RTA had invoked the powers
under Section 86 (1) of the Act. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold
that Ext.P4 order was not in review of the earlier decision, but was
passed in exercise of the powers under Section 86 of the Motor
Vehicles Act. Of course in Binu Chacko’s case (supra) this Court held
that an existing operator cannot challenge a permit granted to
another operator, but that does not mean that the RTA cannot take
into account a complaint filed by an existing operator bringing to the
attention of the RTA a violation of the Act or rules for invoking powers
under Section 86. The RTA can come into knowledge of such violation
only if somebody points it out to the RTA. Simply because the source
of the information is the 3rd respondent, the principle in Binu Chako’s
case, (supra) does not come into play. Here the violation and
4
misrepresentation of fact were brought to the attention of the RTA by
the 3rd respondent, no doubt. But on the basis of that information the
RTA independently considered the matter after obtaining a report from
the enquiry officer, who himself later admitted that the first report was
on the basis of an omission due to oversight. The fact that the route
proposed by the petitioner overlaps a notified route is not disputed
before me. Further, there is a specific finding in Ext.P4 that the
petitioner misrepresented the fact before the RTA by claiming a
permit in a route which overlaps a notified route. Regarding the third
contention, I do not find any merit, since Section 86 can be invoked if
the holder of the permit has obtained the permit by fraud or
misrepresentation. When there is a specific finding by both the RTA
and the Tribunal that the petitioner had in fact misrepresented the
facts before the RTA, invocation of powers under Section 86 is clearly
within jurisdiction. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition and,
accordingly, the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
///True copy///
P.A. to Judge
5