Kerala High Court
K.Sathyan vs The Regional Transport Authority on 10 January, 2017
Author: P.B.Suresh Kumar
Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/20TH POUSHA, 1938
WP(C).No. 32157 of 2016 (T)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
K.SATHYAN, S/O.KRISHNAN,
MATTUPPARA HOUSE, NENMARA,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
PALAKKAD - 678 001.
2. THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
PALAKKAD -678 001.
3. B.MURALIDHARAN, S/O.KRISHNAN,
KALMADAM HOUSE, AKATHETHARA,
PALAKKAD - 678 008.
4. K.BABU, KALAMPARAMBU,
MALAKULAM, MELARCODE P.O.,
PALAKKAD - 678 703.
R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.MABLE C. KURIAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 04-10-2016 THE COURT ON 10-01-2017, DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
msv/
WP(C).No. 32157 of 2016 (T)
---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT VALID TILL 1.8.2020
P2 TRUE COPY OF THE R.C OF KL-10/M 8715.
P3 TRUE COPY OF THE C.F. ISSUED TO KI-10/M 8715.
P4 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX LICENSE ISSUED TO KL-10/M 8715.
P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RC OF KL-05/U 2566.
P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLACEMENT APPLICATION DTD.13.6.2016.
P7 TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT VALID TILL 13.7.2016.
P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD.27.6.2016 IN
WPC.NO.21295/2016.
P9 TRUE COPY OF THE AGENDA FOR ITEM NO.180 DTD.13.7.2016.
P10 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DTD.16.7.2016.
P11 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD.3.6.2016.
P11(a) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD.6.6.2016.
P11(b) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD.13.6.2016.
P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DTD.20.6.2016.
P13 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD.22.6.2016.
P14 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DTD.24.6.2016.
P15 TRUE COPY OF REGISTRATION PARTICULARS OF KL-10/M 8715.
P16 TRUE COPYOF THE R.C. OF KL-10/M 8715 (CORRECTED).
P17 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.11.8.2016.
P18 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DTD.22.8.2016.
P19 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DTD.13.7.2016 IN ADDL.
SUPPLEMENTARY ITEM NO.180.
P20 TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT VALID TILL 13.7.2016.
P21 PHOTOSTAT COPIES OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF KL-1O/M 8715.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
----------------------- NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE
msv/
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.32157 of 2016
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of January, 2017
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner was operating a stage carriage service making use of vehicle bearing Registration No.KL- 10/M-8715. When the said vehicle was about to complete 15 years, the petitioner purchased a new vehicle and preferred an application for replacement of the vehicle in respect of which permit has been issued to him, with the new one. Since the said application submitted by the petitioner has not been considered, the petitioner approached this Court, and as per Ext.P8 judgment, this Court directed the Regional Transport Authority to W.P.(c).No.32157 of 2016 : 2 : consider the same. Pursuant to Ext.P8 judgment, the application preferred by the petitioner has been listed for decision. Ext.P9 is the agenda of the meeting scheduled on 13/07/2016. Item No.180 in the Agenda was the application preferred by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, two persons were shown as objectors to the application preferred by the petitioner in the Agenda. As the petitioner was not aware of the nature of the objections taken by the persons who are shown as objectors in the Agenda, he applied for copies of the objections preferred by them under the Right to Information Act. The petitioner has also applied for copies of the reports obtained by the Authorities on the application preferred by the petitioner, under the Right to Information Act. The said application was preferred by the petitioner on 30/06/2016. Ext.P10 is the communication by which the documents sought by the petitioner has been furnished to him. Ext.P10 was issued to the petitioner on 16/07/2016. The special case of the petitioner is that though he has pointed out to the Regional Transport W.P.(c).No.32157 of 2016 : 3 : Authority when the matter was taken up on 13.7.2016 that he is yet to be given copies of the documents applied for by him including the copies of the objections, the application was rejected without affording the petitioner an opportunity to make submissions after receipt of the documents. Ext.P19 is the order issued rejecting the application for replacement preferred by the petitioner. It is seen that Ext.P19 order has been passed based on the objections preferred by the rival operators. According to the petitioner, Ext.P19 order is vitiated for non compliance of the principles of natural justice. Hence this writ petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.
3. The fact that the petitioner has been operating stage carriage service based on a regular permit, making use of his vehicle bearing registration No.KL-10/M- 8715 is not in dispute. Normally, when the said vehicle completes 15 years, the petitioner is entitled to get the vehicle replaced by a new one. The petitioner has applied for W.P.(c).No.32157 of 2016 : 4 : replacement of the vehicle. When rival operators raise objections against the replacement sought by the petitioner, he is entitled to know the nature of their objections. Since there is no practice of furnishing copies of objections in the nature of one referred to above, the petitioner sought the copies of objections preferred against his application for replacement, invoking the Right to Information Act. It is beyond dispute that the copies applied for by the petitioner were not served on him when the matter was taken up for hearing by the Regional Transport Authority on 13.7.2016. Having applied for copies of all the relevant documents, I do not find any reason to disbelieve the case of the petitioner that he has sought time for making submissions, on 13.7.2016. The Regional Transport Authority, in the circumstances, ought not to have disposed of the application preferred by the petitioner for replacement of the vehicle on 13.7.2016. Having regard to the facts narrated by the petitioner, I am of the view that the Regional Transport Authority ought to have adjourned the matter on 13.7.2016. W.P.(c).No.32157 of 2016 : 5 : In the said view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to succeed.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed, Ext.P19 order is quashed and the Regional Transport Authority is directed to consider the application preferred by the petitioner for replacement afresh on merits, in accordance with law. It is seen that temporary permits are being issued to the petitioner in the meanwhile. As such, there will also be a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to issue temporary permits to the petitioner to operate service until a final decision is taken in the application preferred by the petitioner for replacement of the vehicle.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE rsr