IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2010 / 15TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 20733 of 2010(N) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- RASHEEDKUTTY, 48 YEARS, S/O.HYDROSEKUTTY, REJI MANZIL, NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND, KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR SRI.P.P.BIJU SRI.K.S.PRAVEEN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KAYAMKULAM. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, CIVIL STATION,ALAPPUZHA BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.20733 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th August, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is an autorickshaw driver. According to him, he had an autorickshaw earlier, which was covered by a permit, with his halting place near the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Bus Stand, Kayamkulam. He sold the vehicle about six months back and has purchased a new autorickshaw. Thereafter, he submitted Ext.P1 application for the grant of a permit with the very same halting place that was allotted to his earlier vehicle. However, the first respondent returned the application with an endorsement in its margin directing the petitioner to request for a permit outside the limits of the town. The petitioner challenges the action of the first respondent in this writ petition. Though he had complained to the second respondent about the impugned action by submitting Ext.P2, the said authority has not taken any action thereon. Therefore, the petitioner seeks a direction for the consideration of Ext.P2. wpc No.20733/2010 2 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent. In paragraph-3 thereof, it is submitted that the Traffic Police, Kayamkulam during the year, 2005 had reported that the Kayamkulam Municipality area was suffering from congestion due to the unrestricted issuance of autorickshaw permits in the Municipal area and thereby the normal flow of traffic in the town especially near the KSRTC bus stand had been affected. Therefore, the Police have made a request for the imposition of restrictions on the issuance of a fresh halting place in Kayamkulam Municipal area, especially near the KSRTC bus stand. The matter was got enquired into through the Circle Officer under the first respondent, who reported that the request of the Traffic Police was genuine. Therefore, the first respondent discussed the matter with the Regional Transport Officer, Alappuzha and took a consensus decision to impose restrictions on the issuance of fresh halting places to autorickshaws in the Municipal area so as to ensure the smooth and free flow of traffic. The restriction was implemented in the year 2007 itself. Therefore, no fresh permits with halting place in the wpc No.20733/2010 3 Municipal area has been issued especially near the KSRTC bus stand. 3. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri.K.C.Santhosh Kumar, the learned Senior Government Pleader. I have also considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. It is true that the authorities have sufficient power to restrict the grant of permits as well as the allotment of halting places within the city. However, the same can be done only in accordance with law. Section 74(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the 'Act' for short) confers power on the State Government, acting in accordance with a direction of the Central Government, to direct the State Transport Authority and the Regional Transport Authority by a notification in the official gazette to limit the number of contract carriages generally or of any particular type as may be fixed and specified, operating on city routes, where such restriction is necessary, having regard to the number of vehicles, road conditions and other relevant matters. In the present case, admittedly, there is no such notification in force. A reading of Section 80 shows that wpc No.20733/2010 4 the grant of a permit is the general rule and that it requires the authority to grant a permit and not to refuse one in the ordinary circumstance. 4. The learned Senior Government Pleader places reliance on Section 117 of the Act to contend that power to determine parking places and halting stations is available to the authorities. True, the above provision grants power to the State Government or to any other authority authorised in this behalf by the Stage Government, to determine parking places and halting places in consultation with the local authority. In the present case, halting places in the Kayamkulam Municipality have already been determined by the authorities. The learned Senior Government Pleader also relies on Rule- 344 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 to contend that the Regional Transport Authority has the power to determine the parking places and halting places of Vehicles, in consultation with the local authority concerned. Therefore, it is submitted that the first respondent has the power to authorize the petitioner to apply for a halting place outside the Municipal area. wpc No.20733/2010 5 5. It is seen from Ext.P1 that the first respondent has not rejected the application of the petitioner. The authority has only returned the same with an endorsement directing the petitioner to request for a halting place outside the Municipal area. Absolutely, no reasons are stated for the above direction. The specific contention of the petitioner that he is a person who was having an autorickshaw permit earlier with its halting place near the KSRTC bus stand. His case is that after the sale of his autorickshaw, he has only sought for the grant of a fresh permit in the place of his earlier permit. The first respondent ought to have considered the request and passed appropriate orders on the same in accordance with law. The petitioner also contends that after the return of Ext.P1 application by the first respondent, an application submitted by one Dinesan in respect of another autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KL-29/B 8549 was received by the first respondent and a permit has also been issued with halting place within the limits of the town. Therefore, he contends that the denial of the very same treatment to the petitioner is a violation of Article 14 of the wpc No.20733/2010 6 Constitution. 6. Since the request in Ext.P1 was not even considered by the first respondent, it is necessary that the said request is considered by him with reference to all the relevant inputs. Therefore, this writ petition can be disposed of directing Ext.P1 to be considered in accordance with law. 7. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to receive the application of the petitioner, evidenced herein by Ext.P1, to consider the same in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner also to be heard. The petitioner shall produce a copy of of this judgment before the first respondent for compliance with the above direction. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/