Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 575 (KER)

P. Ahammed v. The Regional Transport Authority

2002-08-29

R.RAJENDRA BABU

body2002
Judgment :- Petitioner applied for the grant of regular permit in respect of his stage carriage bearing Reg.No. KL-10/M 3449 to operate on the route Karakkad-Cherpiassery. The above application was rejected by the first respondent on the ground that the vehicle offered was having a regular permit on the route Ongailur-Ottappalam, which was valid upto 3.1.2007. Petitioner challenged the above order before the STAT in MVAA No.278/2002. The STAT, by Exhibit P1 judgment, allowed the appeal and directed the first respondent to grant the regular permit to the petitioner to operate on the above route subject to settlement of timings. As the first respondent did not comply with the above order of the STAT so far, petitioner filed this original petition for directing the first respondent to comply with the above order of the STAT and to grant the regular permit. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first respondent is bound to comply with Exhibit P1 judgment of the STAT and to grant the regular permit as payed for. He placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Ushakumari V Abdul Azeez (2000 (1) KLJ 141) to substantiate his argument that even without offering a vehicle or producing the current records of the vehicle the RTA is bound to consider the application for the grant of regular permit and to grant the permit and as per Rule 159 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) he need produce the current records of the vehicle within thirty days from the date of grant of permit which can be extended upto four months as allowed by the competent authority. Hence, the first respondent is bound to comply with the direction of the STAT and to grant the regular permit. 4. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the vehicle offered by the petitioner was having a regular permit valid upto 2007 and regular permit cannot be granted in respect of the same vehicle unless the petitioner surrenders the existing permit. It was further submitted that the decision relied on by the petitioner has no relevancy in the present case. The facts of the above decisi0on in 2000 (1) KLJ 141 cited supra do not have any similarity with the facts of the present case. It was further submitted that the decision relied on by the petitioner has no relevancy in the present case. The facts of the above decisi0on in 2000 (1) KLJ 141 cited supra do not have any similarity with the facts of the present case. That was a case where the applicant for the grant of regular permit was not the registered owner of the vehicle, but he applied for the grant of regular permit while the transfer of registration proceedings were pending before the competent authority in respect of the vehicle. In that case, in fact, no vehicle was offered at the time of applying and while considering the grant of the permit. It is settled law that the vehicle need not be offered at the time of grant and the current records of the vehicle need be produced within thirty days form the date of grant of permit or such extended period upto four months in view of Rule 159 of the Rules. But, this is a case where the petitioner had offered a vehicle and that vehicle was having a valid regular permit upto 2007 to be operated in another route and that permit was not surrended. The learned Government Pleader placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Johnson v. R.T.A., Trichur (1999 (2) KLT 434). The facts of the above case are identical with the facts of the present case. That was a case where the application filed for the grant of regular permit in respect of the vehicle was having regular permit to operate on another route. There may learned brother Justice Radhakrishnan held: "An applicant is bound to give details of the vehicle in the application itself or at least at the time when the application comes up for consideration before the R.T.A. When application comes up for consideration before the R.T.A. R.T.A. could decide the necessity of granting a permit on a particular route to meet the requirement of the traveling public. It is after assessing the necessity the RTA grants the permit. If the vehicle offered by an operator is already covered by a permit, evidently that permit was granted by the R.T.A. considering the need of the traveling public as well as necessity of operating vehicle on particular route. It is after assessing the necessity the RTA grants the permit. If the vehicle offered by an operator is already covered by a permit, evidently that permit was granted by the R.T.A. considering the need of the traveling public as well as necessity of operating vehicle on particular route. If option is given to the operator to choose between permits that will be against public interest and will defeat the object of the legislation. Petitioner contentions if accepted the vehicle can then be covered by any number of permits. That will give an undue advantage to the operator so as to decide through which route he should operate his vehicle. It will also deny the chance of other applicants whop otherwise would have for the permit." I respectfully agree with the above view taken by my learned brother. When there is already a valid regular permit in respect of the vehicle, the grant of regular permit in respect of the same vehicle to operate on another route would be against the public interest and would amount to denial of the chances of other applicants who otherwise would have got the permit. Rule 159 of the Rules which deals only with the production of current records of the vehicle, cannot have any application in the present case. In view of the decision of this Court in 1999 (2) KLT 434 cited supra, I do not think that it would be proper for this Court to direct the first respondent to comply with Exhibit P1 judgment of the STAT. 5.Another argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that Exhibit P1 judgment was not at all challenged by the State and as such the above order has become final and this Court cannot interfere with the above order. I do not think that the above argument can be accepted. When the petitioner approached this Court for directing the first respondent to implement Exhibit P1 judgment passed by the STAT, this Court as to consider the propriety and legality of the order sought to be implemented. This Court cannot function as a mere Execution Court to direct the first respondent to implement Exhibit P1 Judgment. When the petitioner approached this Court for directing the first respondent to implement Exhibit P1 judgment passed by the STAT, this Court as to consider the propriety and legality of the order sought to be implemented. This Court cannot function as a mere Execution Court to direct the first respondent to implement Exhibit P1 Judgment. When the petitioner has approached this court for a remedy, this court bound to considered the propriety and legality and validity of the order relied on by the petitioner and if that order is illegal or improper, this Court cannot direct the implementation of the same and it is the duty of this Court to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. This Court cannot direct the implementation of an illegal order. Though the State had not challenged Exhibit. P1 judgment in appropriate proceedings, this Court cannot direct the implementation of an illegal order. Prima facie, the order passed by the STAT is against the decision of this Court in 1999 (2) KLT 434 cited supra. Hence, this Court cannot direct the implementation of Exhibit P1 judgment though it was not challenged by the State in appropriate proceedings and as such the order of the STAT cannot be directed to be implemented, but is liable to be set aside and this petition has only to be dismissed. In the result, this original petition is dismissed and the order of the STAT is set aside.