Kerala High Court
The Bus Owners Unity Scheme vs The Regional Transport Officer Cum on 8 September, 2015
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 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2017/14TH CHAITHRA, 1939
WP(C).No. 11487 of 2017 (I)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
1. THE BUS OWNERS UNITY SCHEME
UNDER FEROKE AREA BUS OPERATORS ASSOCIATION,
WITH ITS REGISTRATION NO.509/2002
REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT C.K. ABDUL RAHMAN,
FEROKE, KOZHIKODE- 673 631
2. M.RAMLA BEGAM,
NAGATHAN KANDY HOUSE,
PO G.A. COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE- 673 014
BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER CUM
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
KOZHIKODE
PIN- 673 020
BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. C.S.SHEEJA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 04-04-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
SKG
WP(C).No. 11487 of 2017 (I)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF HE RTA DATED
8-9-2015
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST FILED BY THE 1ST
PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT DATED
10-02-2017
EXHIBITP3 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST FILED BY THE 2ND
PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT DATED 18-2-2017
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
----------------------- NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.S.TO JUDGE
SKG
P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.
------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.11487 of 2017
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of April, 2017
JUDGMENT
The first petitioner is an association of stage carriage operators. The second petitioner is a member of the first petitioner association. The members of the first petitioner association including the second petitioner used to display advertisements on their vehicles. Permission of the competent authority is required under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules for displaying advertisements on motor vehicles. The permission is granted for a term on payment of fee prescribed by the Rules on condition that if the vehicle is not produced after removing the advertisement on the expiry of the term, the applicant for permission will W.P.(C) No.11487 of 2017 -2- be liable to pay fees for displaying the advertisements for the subsequent period as well. The petitioners are aggrieved by the said condition. According to the petitioners, it is unnecessary to produce the vehicle for inspection, if the owner of the vehicle is not intending to seek renewal of the permission on the expiry of the term. The petitioners, therefore, seek directions to the respondent to refrain from insisting production of the vehicle for inspection by the Motor Vehicles Inspector on the expiry of the term of permission.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Government Pleader.
3. It is beyond dispute that the fee is collected only for a term. If the applicant wants to continue the display, he has to pay fee for the subsequent period as well. It is for the purpose of ensuring that the person concerned is not continuing the display beyond the period for which fee has been remitted, a report of the Motor W.P.(C) No.11487 of 2017 -3- Vehicles Inspector is insisted on the expiry of the term. The prayer in the writ petition, in the circumstances, is misconceived and the writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
P.B. SURESH KUMAR JUDGE bpr