IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 27574 of 2011(V) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- M.P.MINEESH, AGED 31, S/O.PARAMESWARAN, MANIYALIL HOUSE, CHITTATTUKARA, VADAKKEKARA P.O., NORTH PARUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON SRI.M.JITHESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL LINES, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-30. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL LINES, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-30. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.G.GOPAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.27574/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1:-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 13.11.09. EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN MVAA NO.83/2010 DATED 8.6.2011 EXT.P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 6.8.2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.27574 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner applied for the grant of a fresh regular stage carriage permit to operate a stage carriage on the route Kodungalloor – Eloor Ferry. The Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam that met on 13.11.2009 rejected the application by Ext.P1 proceedings on the short ground that the route overlaps a notified route (Thrissur-Triprayar scheme) in excess of the permissible limit of 5 kms. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. By Ext.P2 judgment delivered on 8.6.2011, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside Ext.P1 and remanded the application to the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam for fresh consideration in accordance with law, on the basis of the observations made therein. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal held that if there is no other way to reach the place, the overlapping on the sector from Kodungalloor Temple to Thiruvanchikulam Temple can only be considered as an inevitable intersection, in which case, it cannot be said to be objectionable. 2. Pursuant to Ext.P2 order of remand, the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam that met on 6.8.2011 considered the petitioner’s application afresh. On that day, on noticing that the route W.P.(C) No.27574 of 2011 2 is an inter district route having length of 25 kms. out of which 4.5 kms lies in Thrissur district, the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam decided to seek the concurrence of Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur and the application was accordingly adjourned awaiting the decision of the Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur. Hence, this writ petition challenging Ext.P3 to the extent it adjourns the application and calls for the concurrence of the Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that no concurrence is required in view of the general concurrence granted by the Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur in the year 2002 and that as no concurrence was sought when the application was first considered on 13.11.2009, the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam cannot seek concurrence in view of the direction issued by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in Ext.P1. 3. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 29.10.2011. In paragraph 6 thereof, it is stated that though there is general concurrence, it is not applicable to grant of fresh permits where the route overlaps a notified route. As regards the decision taken by the Regional Transport Authority to seek concurrence of the Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur, it is stated W.P.(C) No.27574 of 2011 3 that as a portion of the route lies in Thrissur district and the general concurrence does not apply to the petitioner’s application, the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam was perfectly right in seeking the concurrence of the Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur. 4. I heard Sri.M.Jithesh Menon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.G.Gopakumar, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. I have also gone through the decision taken by the Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur on 2.5.2002 when it considered the grant of general concurrence for stage carriage services upto 10 kms. from the border of Thrissur district. The decision taken by the Regional Transport Authority at its meeting held on 2.5.2002 reads as follows:- “General concurrence is granted upto 10 kms. from the district border of Thrissur dstrict from other districts in the case there there is no Notification Scheme.” In the instant case, the fact that a notification is in existence and the fact that a portion of the route overlaps the notified route are not in dispute. Therefore, in terms of the decision taken by the Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur on 2.5.2002, the general concurrence can have no application. I therefore find no merit in the contention of W.P.(C) No.27574 of 2011 4 the petitioner that in view of the general concurrence, it was not necessary to seek the concurrence of the Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur. Then the only other question is whether in view of the order of remand evidenced by Ext.P2, the Regional Transport Authority could have adjourned the application and sought the concurrence of the Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur. The fact that a portion of the route having a length of 4.5 kms. falls in Thrissur district is not in dispute. As the general concurrence does not govern the instant application, it was necessary for the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam to seek the concurrence of the Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur. Therefore, the mere fact that on an earlier occasion when the application was first considered, such concurrence was not sought is not a reason to hold that later when the application is taken up for fresh consideration pursuant to the direction of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, the concurrence should not have been sought. All that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal did by Ext.P2 order was to remand the application for fresh consideration based on the observation made in that order and in accordance with law. Therefore, if law mandates that concurrence should be sought, the decision taken by the Regional Transport W.P.(C) No.27574 of 2011 5 Authority, Ernakulam to seek concurrence cannot be said to be contrary to Ext.P2. All that the petitioner can say in the matter of grant of concurrence is that the observations made in Ext.P2 should be taken note of by the authority whose concurrence is sought. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with Ext.P2. However, having regard to the fact that the petitioner’s application is pending for the last nearly 2 years, I dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur whose concurrence has been sought by the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam in the matter of application referred to in Ext.P1 to take a final decision on the request made by the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam expeditiously and in any event within two weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say, the Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur shall have due regard to the observations made by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in Ext.P2, especially the observation in paragraph 3 thereof. The Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam shall within one month from the date of receipt of the decision of the Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur on the request made by it for concurrence pass appropriate orders on the application submitted by the petitioner pursuant to W.P.(C) No.27574 of 2011 6 Ext.P2 order of remand and in the event of the petitioner being found eligible for the permit, issue the permit if the petitioner produces the current records of the vehicle offered by him in time, within one month from the date of production of the records. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. nj. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 27574 of 2011 JUDGMENT Dated:- 4th November, 2011 --------------------------------------