IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 27042 of 2007(T)
1. P.P.DINESAN, S/O.GOVINDAN, AGED 47,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO
3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
4. THE SECRETARY,
5. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER,
6. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
7. THE SECRETARY,
8. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
For Respondent :SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :28/11/2007
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
===================
W.P.(C) NO.27042 OF 2007 T
===================
Dated this the 28th day of November, 2007
J U D G M E N T
Ext.P2 is a permit that was granted to the petitioner for the
sector Parassinikadavu-Ernakulam and valid till 14/7/06. It is
seen that the Kannur, RTA had rejected concurrence and that
decision of the RTA was called in question before the STAT in
MVARP No.400/06, which was disposed of by Ext.P5. In Ext.P5,
the STAT has proceeded on the footing that Ext.P2 permit was
valid upto 31/8/05 and on that basis concluded that the
petitioner was not eligible for the saving clause provided in
Ext.P6 notification dated 9/5/06. This obviously is erroneous in
as much as Ext.P2 is valid till 14/7/2006. If so, the petitioner
was eligible for the protection provided for in Ext.P6 notification.
For that reason, Ext.P5 order and the decision of the RTA
deserves to be set aside and I do so.
2. The next question is regarding the rejection of
renewal, which was a subject matter of MVARP 282/07. That
decision of the RTA, Vadakara in this case was also confirmed by
WPC 27042/07
: 2 :
the STAT in Ext.P12 judgment, following the definition in Rule 2
(oa) of K.M.V Rules.
3. Learned senior counsel invites my attention to Ext.P16
proceedings of the State Transport Authority meeting held on
9/10/2007, wherein STA has decided to move the Government
for amending the said rule to save the existing LSOS services. It
was also held that the RTAs will permit the existing operators to
continue their LSOS service on the strength of regular permit or
temporary permit for a period of four months on expiry of regular
permits. Petitioner claims that they are entitled to the benefit of
Ext.P16 as well. Since RTA and STAT has rested its conclusion
entirely on Rule 2(oa)of K.M.V Rules, Ext.P12 also requires to be
re-examined in the light of Ext.P16. Therefore, to enable the RTA
to do so, I quash to reconsider the decision of RTA and Ext.P12 of
the STAT as well.
4. As a necessary consequence of setting aside Exts P5
and P12, the matter now has to go back to the RTA Kannur and
Vatakara. The concerned RTAs shall reconsider the matter in the
light of the observations herein above contained and take fresh
WPC 27042/07
: 3 :
decision in the matter.
5. Petitioner submits that Ext.P14, temporary permit
application filed by the petitioner is pending. If such an
application is pending, RTA shall consider this and dispose of the
same as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within four weeks
of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp
