Kerala High Court
Rahul S Kumar vs The Regional Transport Authority on 5 March, 2020
Author: S.Manikumar
Bench: S.Manikumar, Shaji P.Chaly
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
THURSDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1941
WA.No.425 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 32763/2019(U) OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
RAHUL S KUMAR,
AGED 32 YEARS,
S/O.SREEKUMAR, THOMPIL SREE SADANAM,
THATTAYAIL, PANDALAM.
BY ADV.SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
MUVATTUPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINI STATION, PAZHAPALLY, MUDAVOOR P.O.,
MUVATTUPUZHA-686 669.
2 THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MINI STATION,
PAZHAPALLY, MUDAVOOR P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA-686 669.
R1 & R2 SPL.GP SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.03.2020,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.425/2020 2
JUDGMENT
S.Manikumar, CJ.
Challenge in this writ appeal is to the judgment in W.P.(C).No.32763 of 2019 dated 20.01.2020, by which the writ court after considering the pleadings and submissions, dismissed the writ petition, filed for quashing Ext.P6 judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in M.V.A.A No.30 of 2019 dated 18.11.2019, which confirmed the order of the Regional Transport Authority dated 24.11.2018.
2. The appellant is a regular stage carriage permit holder operating on the route Inchathotty-Neriamangalam-Puthencruz- Perumbavoor with stage carriage bearing Registration No.KL 2/T 4003. His predecessor-in-interest has sought for variation of the route by extending a portion thereof by 2 Kms from Puthencruz to Allungal and to curtail the forest area from Neriamangalam to Inchathotty. Application for variation submitted by the predecessor in interest has been rejected by Ext.P2 order dated 17.03.2018 passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Muvattupuzha.
3. Being aggrieved by Ext.P2 order, predecessor-in-interest has filed an appeal to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam. Said appeal was rejected with a direction to the 1 st respondent, Regional W.A.No.425/2020 3 Transport Authority, to reconsider the application for variation of permit submitted by the predecessor in interest and to pass orders, in accordance with law.
4. Regional Transport Authority, Muvattupuzha, has considered the application on merits and rejected the same. The appellant, who had obtained transfer of permit, preferred an appeal to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam. Learned Appellate Tribunal considered the pleadings and submissions, and rejected the appeal vide order dated 18.11.2019 in M.V.A.A. No.30 of 2019. Hence, W.P.(C).No.32763 of 2019 has been filed seeking to quash Ext.P6 judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam.
5. Having considered the pleadings and submissions, writ court in the impugned judgment ordered thus:
"2. It is apparent from a perusal of Ext.P6 judgment that the primary contention raised by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority was that there was a fear of animal attacks on stage carriages plying on the route, since that portion of the route was in the proximity of a forest area, where wild elephants often cross the road. The report of the enquiry officer, that was relied upon by the Appellate Authority, however showed that there had been no information received about any attack by wild animals on stage carriages, and further that there were vehicles plying on the route without any problems. It is also relevant to note that there was no material produced by the petitioner, at any stage, to suggest W.A.No.425/2020 4 that there were frequent animal attacks/elephant attacks on vehicles operating on the said route. Under the said circumstances, Ext.P6 judgment passed by the Appellate Authority (State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam) cannot be said to be erroneous, either in fact or in law, for the purposes of warranting an interference with the same in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."
6. Assailing to the correctness of the judgment impugned, instant appeal is filed on the following grounds:
"B. The learned Single Judge erred in finding that when Exhibit P3 judgment of STAT find that the intimation of the forest official is to be considered and when reconsidering the matter reversing the judgment, nothing is mentioned regarding the letter of the forest officials.
C. When there is fear that the field officer consider the matter of variation, if there is any claim that the elephants are on the road and when protection is asked from the forest officials and the report obtained of the M.V.Inspector, necessary report ought to have obtained from the Forest Officials, rather than obtaining a report of the field officer under the Motor Vehicles Act, which was not considered by the learned single Judge. D. It is necessary to consider the variation from Inchathottikkadavu instead of Inchathotty to avoid the fear of wild animals which was missed to be considered by the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge ought to have compared the safety and alleged convenience of public."
7. On the above grounds Mr.G.Prabhakaran, learned counsel for the appellant made submissions. He further submitted that the Regional Transport Authority, Muvattupuzha and the State Transport Appellate W.A.No.425/2020 5 Tribunal have not considered the reasons assigned in the application for variation in proper prospective and, therefore, both the orders are erroneous.
8. Perusal of the order of Regional Transport Authority shows that the said authority has considered the report furnished by the field officer to the effect that no such cases of attack on the vehicles were reported so far to the forest authorities in as much as there was lack of transportation facilities in Inchathotty area and withdrawal of the trip towards the ill- served sector, will adversely affect the passengers and the interest of the public, including the tribals residing in that area. Earlier, at the time of issuance of permit, the prime factor put forward by the predecessor-in- interest was that Inchathotty is a remote area having no bus services and thus, the permit was granted. Perusal of the order of the Tribunal in M.V.A.A.No.30 of 2019 dated 18.11.2019 shows that the field officer's report has been considered and that vehicles were plying in the route without any fear.
9. There is only one stage carriage operating in Inchathotty area. Tribunal has taken note of the effect of curtailment and also the proposed extension sought for, and held that the request for variation permit, if granted, would affect the travelling facility of the public, including the tribals residing in the Inchathotty area. Thus, we find that both the authorities W.A.No.425/2020 6 have found that the variation sought for is not in public interest and that the appellant's version that frequent elephant attacks on the vehicles is also not proved. On the point of elephant attacks, the field officer has reported that no such incident was reported to the Forest Department. As rightly observed by the writ court, there are no grounds warranting interference with Ext.P6 judgment dated 18.11.2019 in M.V.A.A.No.30 of 2019.
In the result, judgment dated 20.01.2020 in W.P.(C).No.32763 of 2019 is sustained. Writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
SHAJI P.CHALY
DG JUDGE
W.A.No.425/2020 7
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER REPORT IN
MATHRUBHUMI.
ANNEXURE A1(a) ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF MALAYALAM
EXHIBIT.