SATHEESH Vs. PARUR MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a registered owner of an autorikshaw described in Ext.P1 certificate at registration. He applied for a fresh contract carriage permit to operate the autorikshaw in North Paravur town with parking place at Kannankulangara junction. By Ext.P3 order dated 21.1.2011, the Joint Regional Transport Officer, North Paravur who is also the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority. Ernakulam at North Paravur rejected the application. Hence this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P3 and seeking a direction to the second respondent to dispose of the application afresh after holding a proper enquiry and with notice to the petitioner. The main ground raised in the Writ Petition is that before Ext.P3 order was passed the petitioner was not heard or put on notice. It is also contended that the Paravur Municipality is not empowered to place any restriction on the number of permits to be issued and before Ext.P3 order was passed no proper enquriy was conducted.

(2.) I heard Sri. C. Chandrasekharan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Ajith Prakash, learned standing counsel appearing for the first respondent and Smt. Anitha Ravindran, learned Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent. The impugned order reads as follows:

(3.) The petitioner has positively averred in the Writ Petition that before it was passed he was not put on notice. The said averment is not disputed or denied by the second respondent. That apart, an application for contract carriage permit can be considered and disposed of only by the Regional Transport Authority, and not by its Secretary. I am therefore of the opinion that Ext. P3 order cannot be sustained. Though the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent contended with reference to S.472 of the Kerala Municipalities Act that the Municipality can insist that restrictions should be imposed on the number of permits issued with halting place in the cart stand provided by it, I am of the opinion that the said contention is without any merit. Under the Explanation to S.472 of the Kerala Municipalities Act an autorikshaw stand is also included within the definition of the term cart stand. S.472 of the Kerala Municipalities Act stipulates that a Municipality may subject to such guidelines as the Government may issue, construct or provide public landing places, halting places and cart stand and may levy fees for the use of the same. S.472 does not in my opinion empower the local authority to say that its views regarding the number of permits to be issued under the Motor Vehicles Act are binding on the Regional Transport Authority. S. 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act also does not empower the local authority to contend that it has a say in the number of permits which can be issued. S. 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act and S.475 of the Kerala Municipalities Act deal only with parking places and halting stations and not with number of permits. I am therefore of the opinion that the stand taken by the second respondent in Ext. P3 cannot be sustained.