IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2010 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 7659 of 2010(F) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- GANGA PRADEEP, W/O.PRADEEP.N.S, LEKSHMI VIHAR, BAPUJI NAGAR, PONGUMOODU, ULLOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SABU S.KALLARAMOOLA RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1 .THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 7659 OF 2010 F ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th April, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P4 stop memo issued by the second respondent directing the petitioner to stop operation of his services on the route Peroorkada- Veli with stage carriage having registration No: KLO 1AE 1300, with immediate effect. According to the petitioner, she is a stage carriage operator conducting services on the route mentioned above on the strength of a temporary permit. She contends that the validity of her permit was extended based on Ext.P1 interim order of this Court, until further orders. The contention of the petitioner is that the services conducted by the petitioner have been directed to be stopped in violation of Ext.P1 interim order and Ext.P2 endorsement. 2. Since the petitioner has mentioned that the writ petition in which Ext.P1order has been passed, was still pending, I directed O.P. 23181/97 also to be posted along with this writ petition. Accordingly both the writ petitions were posted before me on 10.3.2010. Thereupon, I found from the papers of O.P.23181/97 WPC 7659/2010 2 that the said original petition had been finally disposed of by this Court, as per judgment dated 30.3.1998 in the following terms:- “Admittedly the subject matter is now pending in an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Authority. Moreover, the permit is in operation only for four months which will expire only on 11.4.1998. Accordingly, the original petition is closed, permitting the petitioner to operate his vehicle in question only upto 11.4.1998.” 3. Though this Court had permitted the petitioner to operate her vehicle only up to 11.4.1998, the petitioner has been operating her vehicle till this date for a period of about twelve years, without any valid permit. She has been misrepresenting to the authorities that her writ petition was still pending. Ext.P5 is a representation submitted by the petitioner before the third respondent-Transport Commissioner. In Ext.P5 the petitioner has stated as follows:- “I am the registered owner of a stage carriage bearing Registration No: KL 01A E 1300 operating on the route Peroorkkada-Veli on the basis of temporary permit. It is submitted that the permit was granted based on the interim order of the Hon'ble High Court in the 1st referred Writ Petition whereby and whereunder the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to issue an interim direction to issue temporary permit until further order. Based on the above interim order permit WPC 7659/2010 3 was issued to me to operate on the route. The original permit was valid from 31/12/1997 to 13/1/1998 and the same was further extended. It is to be noted that there was an endorsement on my temporary permit vide endorsement C13/48696/1/98 dated 13/3/98 to the following effect: 'In view of the order of the Hon'ble High Court in O.P.23181/97 on 11/3/98 validity of the permit extended until further orders.' It is submitted that, the above case is pending and the interim order of the Hon'ble High Court still operative. Based on the above endorsement I was operating on the basis of the order of the Hon'ble High Court and endorsement made as stated above.” 4. In her writ petition, the petitioner has made the following averments before this Court also. Paragraph 1 of the writ petition reads as follows:- “The petitioner is the registered owner of a Stage Carriage bearing registration No: KLO 1AE 1300 operating on the route Peroorkada to Veli on the basis of a temporary permit. It is submitted that at the time when the city routes in Trivandrum were notified under Section 71(3) of the M.V.Act, the petitioner who was then operating on the route on the basis of temporary permit challenged the route WPC 7659/2010 4 formulation and fixation of number of stage carriages. In the writ petition the petitioner sought for an interim direction vide C.M.P.41416/97 in O.P.23181/97 for maintaining status quo so as to enable the petitioner to operate the service on the route Peroorkada-Veli. A true copy of the order of this Court is produced herewith and marked as Ext.P1. It is submitted that based on the interim order the original permit valid from 31/12/1997 to 13/1/1998 was extended until further orders vide endorsement No: C13/4896/1/98. A true copy of the permit together with the endorsement are produced herewith and marked as Ext.P2. It is seen from Ext.P2 that the endorsement was made on 13/3/98. The above writ petition to the knowledge of the petitioner is still pending with the aforesaid interim order. It is submitted that based on the endorsement Ext.P2 that the permit was extended until further orders without any time limit” 5. The above averments clearly show that the petitioner has filed this writ petition misrepresenting facts. Though the opening words in the averment of the petitioner to the effect that “The above writ petition to the knowledge of the petitioner......” is intended to give an impression that the petitioner was taking extra care to limit the veracity of her averment to the extent of her WPC 7659/2010 5 knowledge, it is not difficult to see through the gimmick. Even if it is assumed that the petitioner had no knowledge of the final disposal of her earlier writ petition, she had a duty to ascertain the fate of the same at least before making the above averment in this writ petition. Especially so, since she herself was the petitioner therein. Therefore, it is clear from her overall conduct that she has filed this writ petition deliberately misrepresenting facts and suppressing the factum of the final disposal of her earlier writ petition. By misrepresenting facts before the authorities she has succeeded in conducting her services for the past twelve years, at the expense of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC). Thereby, she has not only been earning profits but also causing loss of revenue to the KSRTC and to the State exchequer since the same is a State Government Corporation. 6. I do not understand how the authorities permitted the petitioner to operate her vehicle all these years, though the writ petition to which the first respondent was also a party had been disposed of as early as on 30.3.1998. It is pointed out by Shri. Manilal, counsel for the petitioner that the authorities had even granted permission for replacement of the petitioner's vehicle in the year 2004 without taking note of the fact that the writ petition itself had been finally disposed of. WPC 7659/2010 6 7. The magnitude of the deception perpetrated by the petitioner on the authorities, the public and this Court emerges only when one analyses the facts of this case. The petitioner had approached this Court claiming a right to conduct services on the strength of a temporary permit issued to her. Admittedly, the route was one that was notified under Section 71(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the 'Act' for short). Therefore, only the KSRTC could have conducted services on the route. All along, it has been the case of the KSRTC that there were sufficient services on the route, operated directly by the KSRTC. It was with respect to such a route that the petitioner was granted permission to conduct services as per Ext.P1 interim order. The petitioner took advantage of the interim order of this Court and has used it to conduct her services for the past twelve years. There cannot be any doubt that the income that she has earned over the period has been at the expense of the KSRTC. Therefore, by the fraud practised by her on the authorities, she has not only managed to conduct her services and earn profits, but has also managed to over reach the provisions of the notification issued under Section 71(3) of the Act and also to steal a march over the other law abiding operators. She has also filed the present writ petition misrepresenting facts. Therefore, her conduct requires to be viewed with the seriousness that it WPC 7659/2010 7 demands. 8. In view of the above the petitioner was directed to appear in person before Court at 10.15 a.m on 5.4.2010 to personally explain why action should not be taken against her, including action for contempt, as per order dated 31.3.2010. Accordingly the petitioner appeared in Court. She also filed an affidavit explaining the circumstances under which she had made the wrong statements in her writ petition. According to the petitioner's affidavit, her husband is a Director of SRM Group of companies and she is residing with her husband at Chennai. Her husband is also having a business in the name and style Megha Tours and Travels at Thampanoor, Trivandrum. The said business of her husband is also run by their managers. For the past 11 ½ years the petitioner and her husband had been residing at Chennai. The petitioner's husband comes to Thiruvananthapuram once in a month or two months, as the situation demands. 9. The further contention of the petitioner is that her statement in this writ petition that her earlier writ petition was pending, was made on the basis of information supplied by her manager. She asserts that she has not made any willful or deliberate suppression of facts. Therefore, she has stated in her affidavit as follows:- WPC 7659/2010 8 “But due to wanton negligence on my part, I have not verified the fate of the case. It is gathered from the manager that, the information which he got from the counsel was that the case is pending. But I ought to have cross verified the above information which I confess to be a very serious lapse on my part. I deeply and sincerely regret for my lapses and tender unconditional apology for the inconvenience caused to this Court, which leads to the initiation of the proceedings.” 10. She further states in her affidavit as follows:- “Normally when a case is disposed or dismissed the copy of the order will be send to the official respondents from the office of the Advocate General. It is revealed that, the disposal of the case was not intimated from the office of the Advocate General to the office of the Regional Transport Authority. It is submitted that probably based on the above that the authorities had permitted the operation based on Ext.P2 endorsement which had been so made under Rule 163 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules.” The petitioner goes on to make the following submission in her affidavit:- “More over, the old vehicle to which the original temporary permit was granted had been replaced by a WPC 7659/2010 9 later model vehicle. The vehicle is also subjected to the fitness test, during all these period. In all these occasion, the thorough verification of the official records will take place and at no point of time any defect, deformity or other anomaly had been pointed out. It is submitted that the above facts will show that the non-cancellation of endorsement was not based on any suppression or foul play on my part. But the same was on account of the lapses on the part of the officials and even myself realized the above only when this Hon'ble Court pointed out the disposal of the matter” 11. The statements in the petitioner's affidavit, far from accepting the blame for her objectionable conduct, tries to blame the officials for the whole episode. It is worth noticing that it is the petitioner herself who had filed the writ petition. It cannot be believed or even accepted for a moment that she had no knowledge of the dismissal of her writ petition. On the contrary, she appears to have been asserting before the authorities that the writ petition was still pending. Ext.P5 is a clear example of the above conduct on the part of the petitioner. I also recall that this writ petition was filed on 9.3.2010 and was moved for urgent orders on the same day. However, the matter was posted on the next day and it was only thereafter that the discrepancies in the pleadings of the petitioner came to light. Since this writ petition has been filed by WPC 7659/2010 10 the petitioner herself, she herself has to be held responsible for the misrepresentation of the facts therein. The attempt in her affidavit to shift the blame on to a manager whose identity is not disclosed, is only liable to be rejected. However, I seriously doubt whether the petitioner would have been able to operate her services regularly and without break on a nationalized route from 1998 to 2010 without the connivance of the officials. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that an enquiry is conducted into the whole incident and the responsibility for the entire episode fixed. I bear in mind the fact that by operating her services for the past more than 12 years, the petitioner has not only earned profits but has also caused loss of revenue to the exchequer, particularly the KSRTC. 12. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is ordered as follows:- I) The writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/-, which shall be recovered from the petitioner by initiating revenue recovery proceedings against her by the State, if the amount is not paid within one month from today. II) The third respondent – Transport Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram is directed to conduct an enquiry into the entire incident and the circumstances under which the petitioner was permitted to operate her services on the route Peroorkada – WPC 7659/2010 11 Veli from 11/4/1998 to 23/2/2010 though there was no order from this Court or other proceedings permitting her to do so. Such enquiry shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and appropriate action shall be taken against the guilty, in accordance with law. The third respondent shall also ascertain and quantify the monetary loss caused to the exchequer and shall initiate action for the recovery of such loss from the persons responsible. III) The third respondent is further directed to submit a report to this Court regarding the action taken in compliance with the above directions, within a period of four months. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 7659/2010 12 K.K.DENESAN & V. RAMKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO: ----------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Dated: