IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2011 / 23RD POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 26618 of 2010(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MASHOOD KHAN,S/O.JALALUDEEN, THEKKECHARUVILA,NEDUMPANA.P.O,KULAPADAM, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM.REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY,REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,KOLLAM. 3. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,TRANSPORT BHAVAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI FOR R2 SHRI P.BENJAMIN PAUL,SC, KSRTC FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.26618 of 2010 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the registered owner of a stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-2/AC 2969 operating on the route Anchal—Mayyanad on the basis of a temporary permit, which in turn was granted in the vacancy of stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-5/G 182 belonging to Sri.J.Surendran. Sri.J.Surendran had a regular permit in respect of the stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-5/G 182. It was valid upto 22.9.2002. He sought renewal of that permit by submitting an application dated 2.6.2002 for a period of five years from 23.9.2002. That application was rejected by the Regional Transport Authority, Kollam at its meeting held on 25.1.2003 mainly on the ground that a portion of the route having a length of 8.5 Kms. from Anchal to Ayoor is a nationalised route. Sri.J.Surendran challenged Ext.P4 order before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal by filing M.V.A.A.No.408 of 2003. In that appeal the State Transport Appellate Tribunal passed an W.P(C).No.26618 of 2010 -:2:- interim order on 19.5.2003 to the effect that the permit granted to Sri.J.Surendran, the appellant in M.V.A.A.No.408 of 2003 shall continue to be valid till the disposal of the appeal. Sri.J.Surendran continued to operate the stage carriage on the strength of that interim order. 2. M.V.A.A.No.408 of 2003 was dismissed by Ext.P12 judgment delivered on 31.8.2004. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal held that in view of the notified scheme which covers a portion of the route having a length of 8.5 Kms. from Anchal to Ayoor, Sri.J.Surendran, the appellant, is not entitled to a renewal of the permit in respect of the stage carriage KL-5/G 182. It appears suppressing the fact that M.V.A.A.No.408 of 2003 stood dismissed on 31.8.2004 Sri.J.Surendran continued to operate the stage carriage. He also applied for renewal of the permit with effect from 23.9.2007 by submitting an application dated 6.9.2007. The Regional Transport Authority, Kollam, that met on 28.7.2008 granted renewal vide Ext.P1 proceedings without noticing the fact that M.V.A.A.No.408 of 2003 stood dismissed on 31.8.2004 upholding Ext.P4 order of the Regional Transport W.P(C).No.26618 of 2010 -:3:- Authority whereby the Regional Transport Authority declined to renew the permit after 22.9.2002. However, it appears, a renewed permit was not issued pursuant to Ext.P1. Later the same application was again considered and Ext.P2 order was passed by the Regional Transport Authority at its meeting held on 20.11.2009 granting renewal subject to the outcome of W.P(C) No.22196 of 2009 filed by another stage carriage operator challenging the nationalisation of the route Anchal—Ayoor. The Regional Transport Authority thereafter noticed that Sri.J.Surendran, the owner of stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-5/G 182 had no valid permit after 22.9.2002, that the stage carriage was operating on the strength of the interim order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, that the interim order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal stood vacated when the appeal was dismissed on 31.8..2004 and that Sri.J.Surendran had suppressed the said fact when he sought renewal of the permit from 22.9.2007. The Regional Transport Authority accordingly revoked the decision taken by it on 20.11.2009 evidenced by Ext.P2. Ext.P5, the revised decision of W.P(C).No.26618 of 2010 -:4:- the Regional Transport Authority taken at its meeting held on 22.6.2010 discloses these facts. This writ petition was thereafter filed on 19.8.2010 challenging Exts.P4 and P5 orders of the Regional Transport Authority and Ext.P12 judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in M.V.A.A.No.408 of 2003. 3. The petitioner claims that he has entered into an agreement with Sri.J.Surendran for transfer of the permit which was granted to stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-5/G 182 and that in furtherance to the said agreement he and Sri.J.Surendran have jointly submitted the application evidenced by Ext.P3 dated 3.3.2010 to the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kollam for transfer of the permit granted in respect of the stage carriage KL-5/G 182 in favour of the petitioner. The grievance voiced by the petitioner in this writ petition is that till date the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kollam has not placed Ext.P3 application before the Regional Transport Authority for consideration. On that allegation the petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondents to consider Ext.P3 application for transfer of permit in his favour within a time limit to be fixed by W.P(C).No.26618 of 2010 -:5:- this Court and to endorse the transfer of permit so as to enable him to operate his stage carriage KL-2/AC 2969 on the route Anchal-Mayyanad. 4. The Regional Transport Officer, Kollam who is ex-officio the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kollam, has sworn to a counter affidavit dated 22.9.2010 wherein the facts referred to above have been narrated in the chronological order. It is stated that the permit granted to Sri.J.Surendran in respect of the stage carriage KL-5/G-182 was not renewed after 22.9.2002, that he was permitted to operate the stage carriage on the strength of the interim order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal on 19.5.2003, that even though the State Transport Appellate Tribunal had dismissed the appeal, Sri.J.Surendran continued to operate the vehicle as if he held a valid permit, that thereafter on 6.9.2007 he applied for renewal of the permit for a further period of five years from 23.9.2007, that though initially the Regional Transport Authority granted renewal at its meeting held on 28.7.2008 a renewed permit was not issued as it was found when the original of the permit was produced for endorsement of the W.P(C).No.26618 of 2010 -:6:- renewal that it had not been renewed after 22.9.2002, that on enquiries it was noticed that M.V.A.A.No.408 of 2003 was dismissed by judgment delivered on 31.8.2004 upholding the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority on 25.1.2003 declining to renew the permit, that thereupon the application submitted by Sri.J.Surendran was placed before the Regional Transport Authority, and that the Regional Transport Authority that met on 22.6.2010 decided to recall Exts.P1 and P2 orders. It is also stated that it was thereafter that Sri.J.Surendran along with the petitioner applied for transfer of the permit that originally stood in the name of Sri.J.Surendran in favour of the petitioner. It is contended that as Sri.J.Surendran did not hold a valid permit after 22.9.2002 when the validity of the permit initially granted to him expired, the petitioner is not entitled to have his application for transfer of the permit considered. 5. I heard Sri.O.D.Sivadas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Basant Balaji, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri.P.Benjamin Paul, learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala State Road W.P(C).No.26618 of 2010 -:7:- Transport Corporation. Shorn of details the claim made by the petitioner in this writ petition is that the first respondent is bound to consider the application jointly submitted by him and Sri.J.Surendran, the owner of stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-5/G-182, for transfer of the permit issued in respect of that stage carriage in the name of Sri.J.Surendran, in favour of the petitioner. From the materials on record it is evident that the stage carriage belonging to Sri.J.Surendran had no valid permit after 22.9.2002 though he was operating the stage carriage on the strength of the interim order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal on 19.5.2003 during the period when the appeal filed by him was pending and surreptitiously thereafter suppressing the fact that the appeal filed by him before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal stood dismissed on 31.8.2004. The permit granted to Sri.J.Surendran in respect of the stage carriage KL-5/G 182 ceased to be in force on 22.9.2002. With the passing of Ext.P4 order whereby the Regional Transport Authority declined to renew the permit and Ext.P12 judgment by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal on 31.8.2004 upholding Ext.P4, W.P(C).No.26618 of 2010 -:8:- Sri.J.Surendran ceased to have any interest in the permit. Sri.J.Surendran has not challenged Ext.P12 judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and it has attained finality. Therefore, on and with effect from 31.8.2004 Sri.J.Surendran had no right or interest in the permit which was initially granted to him in respect of the stage carriage, KL-5/G 182 though he was operating it even thereafter suppressing the factum of dismissal of the appeal filed by him from the order declining to renew the permit. In such circumstances I am of the opinion that Sri.J.Surendran had no right to apply for transfer of the permit to the petitioner and the petitioner had no right to seek such transfer. Sri.J.Surendran could have applied for transfer only of a valid and current permit and not a permit which had ceased to be in force years back. Necessarily therefore the petitioner cannot be said to be a person aggrieved by Ext.P12. Therefore, the challenge to Ext.P12 at the petitioner's instance is not maintainable. In such circumstances as Exts.P4 and P12 have attained finality and the petitioner cannot be said to be a person aggrieved by the said orders, I am of the opinion that he is not W.P(C).No.26618 of 2010 -:9:- entitled to any of the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. This writ petition is, in my opinion, a clever attempt by the petitioner and the former permit holder Sri.J.Surendran to get over Ext.P4 order of the Regional Transport Authority and Ext.P12 judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and is therefore, liable to be dismissed with costs, which I quantify at Rs.10,000/- payable by the petitioner to the Regional Transport Authority, Kollam. I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.10,000/-. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.26618 of 2010 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 13th January, 2011