IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2011 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 16424 of 2007(E) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- K.T.SUBRAMANIAN, DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, NORTH ZONE, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAVINDRAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA, OFFICE OF THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. K.K.HASSANKUNJU, S/O.AHAMMED, POOVATHU HOUSE, TALASSERRY, REP.BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER P.P.BALAMOHANABHANU, RATHIN NIVAS, P.O.PALAYAD, TALASSERY. 3. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REP.BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R3 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH R2 BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 16424 of 2007(E) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 30.07.1993 EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE RTA DATED 24.10.2005 EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT NO. 653/06 DATED 31.01.2006 EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED. 26.02.2007 EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REOPENING THE CASE FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 30.04.2007 EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE LOK AYUKTA DATED 02.05.2007 EXT.P7 : COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT DATED 19.05.2007 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE smt S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No. 16424 OF 2007 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 1st June, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a Deputy Transport Commissioner, and in that capacity, was the member of the Regional Transport Authority, Vatakara. The Regional Transport Authority, by order dated 24.10.2005, rejected the request for concurrence for renewal of certain permits while granting certain others. The 2nd respondent as the Power of Attorney holder of Sri. P.P. Balamohanabhanu, (whom the petitioner describes as an auto consultant) filed a complaint before the Kerala Lok Ayukta, challenging the decision of the Regional Transport Authority, who passed an order under Section 12 (2) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, finding fault with the RTA for having granted concurrence for renewal of certain permits, while rejecting the others. Ext.P6 is that order. In that Order, the Lok Ayukta also directed appropriate action W.P.(C).No. 16424 OF 2007 :2: against the erring officers for having taken a differential attitude to refuse concurrence for renewal of permits applied for by the petitioner. Based on the same, the Government forwarded the report to the Transport Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram, for appropriate action. Exts.P6 and P7 are under challenge before me. 2. The 2nd respondent has not chosen to file any counter affidavit. The 3rd respondent Government of Kerala has filed a counter affidavit supporting the petitioner. The primary contention is that the RTA is a quasi-judicial body and the Motor Vehicles Act provides for appropriate statutory remedies against the orders of the RTA. Therefore, according to the petitioner and the Government, the Lok Ayukta has no jurisdiction in the matter to entertain a complaint by a permit holder. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. RTA is performing quasi-judicial functions. Maladministration cannot be attributed to a quasi-judicial W.P.(C).No. 16424 OF 2007 :3: authority, in the matter of passing quasi-judicial orders especially since statutory remedies are provided under the Act itself against the quasi-judicial authority. Even otherwise I am not satisfied that the 2nd respondent has, with acceptable materials established any improper motive on the members of the RTA. Therefore, I am of opinion that it was not proper on the part of the Lok Ayukta to entertain the complaint. The Lok Ayukta ought to have relegated the 2nd respondent to the statutory remedies available under law against the decision of the RTA. Therefore, Exts.P6 and P7 are quashed. The writ petition is allowed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE smt