Anvar vs Regional Transport Authority, Represented By Its Secretary

C.S Dias, J

The writ petition is filed, inter alia, to quash Ext P8 order passed by the first respondent and declare that the petitioner is entitled for the grant of a regular permit on the route North Paravur – Vyttila Hub in preference to the permits granted in favour of the respondents 5 to 7.

The brief relevant facts are: the petitioner had submitted Ext P1 application on 15.2.2022, to grant a regular permit in his favour, to operate on the above route, having a distance of 28 kms, as provided under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( in short, ‘Act’). As there was an inordinate delay on the part of the respondents 1 and 2 in considering Ext P1 application, the petitioner filed WP(C) No.23301/2022 before this Court, which was allowed by Ext P2 judgment, directing the first respondent to pass orders on Ext P1 application. Although the first respondent convened a meeting on 26.9.2022, as per Ext P3 proceeding, the meeting was adjourned without passing any orders, in total disregard to the directions contained in Ext P2 judgment. The reason for adjournment is that a bus owners association had filed a representation against the grant of regular permit in favour of the petitioner. As Ext P3 was contemptuous to Ext P2 judgment, the petitioner filed Contempt Case (C) No.97/2023 before this Court. However, when the contempt case came up for consideration, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the directions in Ext P2 judgment was complied with. Accordingly, by Ext P4 judgment, the contempt case was closed. Surprisingly, by Ext P8 order, the first respondent rejected the petitioner’s application. Nonetheless, the first respondent allowed the applications submitted by the respondents 5 to 7 as per Exts P5 to P7 orders, respectively, granting all of them regular permits in respect of principally the same route applied by the petitioner. As the petitioner’s application was filed first i.e., on 15.2.2022, he is entitled for a preference. The petitioner has been treated unequally just because he had approached this Court. The action of the first respondent is vengeful, illegal and arbitrary, and in flagrant violation of the petitioner’s fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition.

The respondents 5 to 7 have filed a separate counter affidavits almost on the same lines, inter alia, contending that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy under Sec.89 of the Act, to prefer an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam. It is without exhausting the statutory remedy, the petitioner has approached this Court. There is no such preference under the Act, as alleged by the petitioner, to grant him the regular permit because he had filed Ext P1 application first. Moreover, as there is no challenge against the regular permits granted to the respondents 5 to 7, this Court may not interfere with their permits. The first respondent has considered the applications submitted by the petitioner and the respondents 5 to 7 and has passed orders on the applications as provided under the Act. The petitioner may be relegated to exhaust his statutory remedy. Unfortunately, this Court has admitted the writ petition and has stayed the grant of regular permits to respondents 5 to 7. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.

Heard; Sri.K.V Gopinathan Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 and Sri.Jithesh Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 5 to 7.

It is evident from the pleadings and materials on record that the petitioner had filed Ext P1 application for regular permit on 15.2.2022. Pursuant to the directions passed by this Court, in Ext P2 judgment, the first respondent passed Ext P3 proceedings and directed the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, to expedite the detailed study of the grant of fresh permit on the route Moothakunnam – North Paravur – Edapally (N.H).

When, the petitioner preferred Contempt Case (C) No.97/2028, the same was closed by this Court, by Ext P4 judgment, on the instructions of the Government Pleader, that the first respondent had complied with Ext P2 judgment. The first respondent had then issued Ext P8 order holding as follows:

“Mean while the applicant filed the Contempt of Court Case No-97/2023 dtd 12/01/2023 due to the non- compliance of judgment in WP(C)-23301/2022 dtd 19/08/2022, In view of the Contempt of Court Case No-97/2023, this authority again perused the application for fresh permit, route enquiry report and the report submitted by the above-mentioned committee and perceived that due to the unsystematic proposed time schedule in the application, the benefits offered by the fresh permit to travelling public is much lesser than the detriment.

Hence this authority is hereby rejected the application for fresh permit.”

(emphasis given)

Surprisingly, on the very same day that Ext P8 order was passed, the first respondent has allowed the applications submitted by the respondents 5 to 7, that too for operating principally on same route as claimed by the petitioner, holding that the objections raised were unsustainable and that permits cannot be denied.

Indisputably, the sole reason for rejecting Ext P1 application is the unsystematic time schedule proposed by the petitioner.

On an appreciation of the pleadings and materials on record, this Court finds sufficient force in the contentions raised by the petitioner that he has been unequally treated for the reason that he had approached this Court to expedite the process and, thereafter, complained of non-compliance of judgment, by filing a contempt case.

When the first respondent has rejected the objections filed by the objectors in respect of the applications submitted by the respondents 5 to 7 as unsustainable, that too principally on the same route, I do not find any reason for the first respondent to take a different view when it came to the consideration of Ext P1 application submitted by the petitioner. The reason stated in Ext P8 is cavil and untenable. If the respondents felt that the timing was unsystematic, then they ought to have given the petitioner an opportunity of rescheduling the timing and hearing, instead of perfunctorily rejecting the application.

It is trite; justice is rooted in confidence and justice is the goal of a quasi judicial proceedings also. Fairness, transparency and equity are hallmarks of quasi-judicial proceedings.

Viewed in the above background and the findings rendered above, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the action of the respondents is tainted with arbitrariness and unreasonableness, which warrants interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, notwithstanding the alternative statutory remedy under the Act, I am inclined to entertain and allow the writ petition. Accordingly, I partly allow the writ petition by declaring that the petitioner is entitled to a regular permit as sought for in Ext P1 permit along with respondents 5 to 7, in the light of the findings rendered above and the reasons stated in Exts P5 to P7. However, if the first respondent feels that there would be a clash of timings between the permits of petitioner and the respondents 5 to 7, he would be at liberty to convene a timing conference and finalise the same in accordance with law.

Resultantly, I allow the writ petition as follows:

(i) Ext P8 order is quashed and set aside.

(ii) Ext P1 application is allowed by declaring that the petitioner is entitled to the grant of regular permit as per Ext P1 application.

(iii) The first respondent is directed to issue the regular permit as per the timings prayed for in Ext P1.

(iv) Notwithstanding the direction Nos (i) and (iii), if the first respondent feels that there is a clash of timings between the permits granted to the petitioner and respondents 5 to 7, he would be at liberty to hold a timing conference and reschedule the timings of the permits of the petitioner and respondents 5 to 7, after affording all of them an opportunity of being heard.

(v) The first respondent shall carry out the entire exercise, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment.

(vi) The permits of the respondents 5 to 7 shall become operational only from the date the above exercise is complied and completed by the first respondent.