K P AJITH KUMAR Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O.P. 17712/2001 Petitioner K.T. Sureshan applied for four months temporary permit on the route Chaliam-Providence College a city permit as notified by the RTA, Kozhikode in the vacancy of stage carriage bearing Reg.No. KLZ 9659, having a valid regular permit till 16.6. 2000. The permit holder had not renewed the permit and hence there was vacancy for conducting service as a substitute one. Another operator also had applied for four months temporary permit on the above route. Both the applications were rejected by the RTA, Kozhikode as per Exhibit P! proceedings dated 6.2.2001 holding that as per SRO 891/2000 the number of stage carriages in Kozhikode city had been limited to 400 and the above number of regular permits had already been exhausted. The petitioner filed this original petition challenging Exhibit P3 notification, i.e., SRO 891 /2000 issued by the government under sections 71(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') Limiting the number of permits, as utravires the provisions of Section 71 (3) (a), (b) and (c) of the Act. It was further contended that the reservation of 40 permits in favour of the State Transport Undertaking was without jurisdiction and as such the above reservation was liable to be quashed. Later, an additional prayer was made for quashing Exhibit P2 notification stating that Exhibit P3 notification was issued modifying Exhibit P2 notification, i.e. SRO 278/93, issued by the Government under Section 71 (3) of the Act. O.P. 31627/2001 O.P. 17712/2001 Petitioner K.T. Sureshan applied for four months temporary permit on the route Chaliam-Providence College a city permit as notified by the RTA, Kozhikode in the vacancy of stage carriage bearing Reg.No. KLZ 9659, having a valid regular permit till 16.6. 2000. The permit holder had not renewed the permit and hence there was vacancy for conducting service as a substitute one. Another operator also had applied for four months temporary permit on the above route. Both the applications were rejected by the RTA, Kozhikode as per Exhibit P! proceedings dated 6.2.2001 holding that as per SRO 891/2000 the number of stage carriages in Kozhikode city had been limited to 400 and the above number of regular permits had already been exhausted. The petitioner filed this original petition challenging Exhibit P3 notification, i.e., SRO 891 /2000 issued by the government under sections 71(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') Limiting the number of permits, as utravires the provisions of Section 71 (3) (a), (b) and (c) of the Act. It was further contended that the reservation of 40 permits in favour of the State Transport Undertaking was without jurisdiction and as such the above reservation was liable to be quashed. Later, an additional prayer was made for quashing Exhibit P2 notification stating that Exhibit P3 notification was issued modifying Exhibit P2 notification, i.e. SRO 278/93, issued by the Government under Section 71 (3) of the Act. O.P. 31627/2001

(2.) Petitioner, one K.P. Ajith Kumar, filed an application for the grant of regular permit to operate on the route Meenchanda, Medical College, Feroke College (Via) Civil Station and Malaparamba. Earlier, the third respondent, Ex-servicemen Co-operative Society was operating on the above said route and they had defaulted. The petitioner applied for regular permit with the same set of timings and initially the application was rejected by the RTA on 13.11.2000 by Exhibit P4 order. The petitioner challenged Exhibit P4 order before the STAT in MVAA No. 437/2000 and the Tribunal by Exhibit P5 order set aside Exhibit P4 order of the RTA and held that the petitioner was entitled to the grant of permit. The matter was again placed before the RTA on 2.3.2001 and the application was again rejected by Exhibit P6 order holding that the number of permits had been limited to 700 in the city of Kochi as per notification SRO 891/2000 and the number has already exhausted. The above order was challenged before the STAT in MVAA No. 223/2001. By Exhibit P9 order the STAT partly allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the above order the petitioner filed this original petition for quashing Exhibit P6 order of the RTA, Exhibits P7 and P8 notifications (SRO 278/1993and 891/2000 respectively) issued by the government under Section 71 (3) of the Act and also for quashing Exhibit P9 order of the STAT.

(3.) The first respondent, State of Kerala, filed a counter in OP 17712/2001 contending that the Central Government as per Notification No. SO.701(E) dated 12.9. 1990 directed the State Government to limit the number of stage carriages operating in the city routes in the cities of Kozhikode and Kochi. Accordingly, the government issued Exhibit P2 notification (SRO) 278/93) limiting the number of stage carriages operating in the city routes of Kozhikode and Kochi. The total number of stage carriages operating in Kozhikode city was fixed at 1150 and in Kochi at 750 and 50 permits had been reserved for the state Transport undertaking at Kozhikode and Kochi. Later the District Road Safety Committee Meeting held at Kozhikode on 7.12.1996 decided to request the Government to reduce the number of services in Kozhikode considering the road condition, the number of vehicles and all other relevant matters. The matter was again considered by the RTA in its meeting held on 7.4.1997 and decided to take up the matter with the State Transport Authority, Trivandrum and requested the Government to give appropriate action to reduce the number of stage carriages. Accordingly, the earlier notification was amended by reducing the number of stage carriages operating the city limits of Kozhikode to 400 and 40 permits had been reserved for State Transport Undertaking. The State Government has the power under Sec. 71(3) of the Act to limit the number of permits having regard to the number of vehicles, road conditions and all other relevant matters and the notification had been issued complying with all the legal formalities and as such those notifications are not liable to be quashed.