Kerala High Court
M.N.Vinitha vs The Regional Transport Authority on 26 March, 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
MONDAY,THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2013/31ST ASHADHA, 1935
WP(C).No. 15109 of 2013 (K)
----------------------------
PETITIONER :
--------------------------
M.N.VINITHA,
NIVEDYAM, CHOVVA P.O, KANNUR.
BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, VATAKARA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, VATAKARA.
BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.M.SANEER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 22-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
sts
WP(C).No. 15109 of 2013 (K)
-----------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE IST RESPONDENT
DATED 26-03-2010
EXIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN MVAA NO. 185 OF 2010 DATED
28-12-2010 PASSED BY THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE IST RESPONDENT
DATED 28-02-2011
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 07-07-2011 SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN MVARP NO. 196 OF 2011 DATED
11-07-2011 PASSED BY THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 32047 OF 2011 DATED
24-05-2012
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE IST RESPONDENT DATED
26-03-2013
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 10-05-2013 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.S.TO.JUDGE
sts
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.
----------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 15109 of 2013-K
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd July, 2013
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner was operating a stage carriage on the route Parassinikadavu - Kannur - Kozhikode - Ernakulam South bus stand as Limited Stop Fast Passenger. The petitioner sought for renewal and the same was rejected as per Ext.P1 on the ground that the route length exceeds 160 Kms and therefore renewal for a Limited Stop Fast Passenger is not possible and therefore no renewal is possible for Limited Stop Past Passenger. The petitioner challenged the said order before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. Ext.P2 is the judgment dated 28.12.2010. While allowing the appeal, the STAT having set aside the impugned order directed grant of renewal to the petitioner as Super Express Service within the meaning of Rule 2 (ub) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules and called upon the petitioner to produce the vehicle in conformity with Rule 260 A of the Motor Vehicles Rules.
2. Still the complaint of the petitioner was that instead of granting the permit, the RTA had requested the W.P.(C) No. 15109 of 2013-K 2 Secretary, RTA to seek concurrence for renewal of the permit from the sister RTA's. It was also stated that the petitioner had not sought for variation of the vehicle to be converted as a Super Express. The petitioner submitted Ext.P4 seeking variation as a Super Express. Still no orders were passed. Therefore, the petitioner filed a revision before STAT as M.V.A.R.P. No. 196/2011 and Ext.P5 is the order. STAT granted a positive order directing the 2nd respondent to issue the permit as sought for.
3. Still nothing was done in the matter and accordingly the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 32047/2011 and by judgment dated 24.5.2012 this Court directed the 2nd respondent i.e. Secretary, RTA to comply with the directions of the STAT and to make necessary endorsement in the permit of the petitioner.
4. The RTA has granted renewal of permit and conversion of service as Super Express as per proceedings dated 9.8.2012. Thereafter the petitioner was directed to produce the vehicle in terms of Rule 260A and 283 of the Rules. The vehicle is already produced. The petitioner was called upon to W.P.(C) No. 15109 of 2013-K 3 give details of the advance ticket booking facilities before the Secretary, RTA as envisaged under Rule 206. According to the petitioner, they have complied with the above request but so far the Secretary, RTA has not made any endorsement in the renewal of the permit as Super Express as contemplated under the Rules.
5. The learned Government Pleader submits that there is no material to indicate that the petitioner had complied with the request of the RTA to give details of the advance ticket booking facilities as provided under Rule 206. That apart, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P8 application for giving stopping places in addition to the permitted stopping places. According to him Ext.P8 request has been placed before the RTA and orders are awaited.
6. Having regard to the aforesaid contentions urged by the parties the short question involved in the writ petition is whether the endorsement as requested by the petitioner could be granted as matters stand now. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in Ext.P8 no orders are required to be passed in the matter and the only request is to W.P.(C) No. 15109 of 2013-K 4 make an endorsement as early as possible.
7. In the light of the aforesaid submission, I am of the view that the following direction can be issued:
In the event of the petitioner providing the advance ticket booking facilities in terms with Rule 206 of the K.M.V. Rules, the 2nd respondent authority shall issue necessary endorsement in favour of the petitioner as early as possible and not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE
rka /true copy/