P SASINDRAN Vs. CHAIRMAN, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KANNUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 31/12/2016 the Mayor, Corporation of Kannur convened a meeting of leaders of political parties of the Council, Circle Inspector, Regional Transport Authority and among other things, resolved to grant city permit to autorikshaws which were allotted parking in the Corporation limit by assigning KC number, which stands for Kannur Corporation, substituting KMC number, abbreviation of Kannur Municipal Corporation. It appears that the above change in the nomenclature became necessary after the Kannur Corporation was formed taking portions of the Kannur Municipality. It was also resolved that the above resolution shall be sent to the Regional Transport Officer for follow-up action. Thereafter, on 03/03/2017, the Regional Transport Officer, Kannur sent an intimation requesting the District Information Officer which suggests that, on the basis of the decision of the Corporation, facilitating the assignment of KC numbers, applications will be invited from 08/03/2017 onwards. It was also stated that the applications should be accompanied by a testimonial from the Corporation Councilor as well. Aggrieved by the above, three registered trade unions, claiming to be representing the interests of autorikshaw employees, moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to quash the above said resolution and the communication dated 03/03/2017, branding it as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. They contended that Exts.P4 and P5 documents usurp into the powers of the Regional Transport Authority under Rule 133 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. They also placed reliance on the decision reported in Sunil Kumar and others v. State of Kerala and others,2015 3 KHC 230.

(2.) The learned single Judge, after hearing both sides, by the impugned judgment, held that the direction in Ext.P5 insisting production of recommendation of the councilor is not in accordance with law and thus that part of the document was quashed and the respondents were directed to consider the applications submitted by the petitioners in accordance with law, after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to all concerned, including Kannur Municipal Corporation, and take decisions on the applications within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Now, the appellant, who is the 5th petitioner in the above writ petition has preferred this appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act.

(3.) We heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipal Corporation and the learned Government Pleader.