P. Ramankutty vs The Secretary

K. Vinod Chandran, J.—The petitioner applied for a regular permit and subsequently, he was granted the same, subject to production of current records of the vehicle intended to be operated. The petitioner did not produce the current records within the 30 days time granted and the application for enlargement of time was also declined. The petitioner thereafter preferred a statutory revision and there was a direction to issue the granted permit.

In the meantime, the petitioner was issued with temporary permits, the last of which was valid till 21.07.2014. The order passed by the Tribunal in the Revision Petition was placed before the RTA and there was a direction also to issue the granted permit; but the Secretary refused to grant the same since the offered vehicle was a lesser model vehicle. The vehicle offered by the petitioner pursuant to the remand made by the Tribunal was an earlier model than that which was projected as intended to be operated; before the Tribunal.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, however would, on the basis of the provisions of the Act as also binding precedents, contend that as long as the vehicle has a fitness certificate as provided under the Act, it is not incumbent on the Regional Transport Authority, to look at the year of manufacture of the vehicle and decline the same merely for the reason that, the vehicle offered is an earlier model.

With respect to the question, as to whether there can be a change in respect of a vehicle after grant of permit and after production of current records, before issuance of the permit, i.e., before settlement of timings, precedents are legion. To mention one, i.e., Vinod Thomas Vs. R.T.A., Kottayam, , this Court found that, before issuance of permit, a stage carriage operator who has been granted the permit can always offer a different vehicle and refusal to issue the granted permit merely for that reason cannot be sustained. It is also to be noticed that herein the rejection made by Ext. P4, is made by the Secretary; the delegate of the Regional Transport Authority. This Court has in Viswambaran Vs. The State of Kerala and Others, in Vishwambharan v. State of Kerala held that though the settlement of timings has been validly delegated by the Regional Transport Authority to its Secretary; for rejection as such, the application would have to be referred to the Regional Transport Authority.

Rule 174(3) indicates that, if a new vehicle is proffered for operation in the route, the Regional Transport Authority could look into the material aspects of the vehicle and then treat it as an application for fresh permit, only in the context of there being difference in any material aspects. It is also clarified by a ''Note'' that, difference of more than 25% of the Gross Vehicle Weight or seating capacity, alone shall be considered as a material difference. This does not contemplate the Regional Transport Authority looking at the model of the vehicle and merely rejecting an application for replacement or substitution, for reason that the year of manufacture of the vehicle makes it an earlier model. It can also be not discounted that, to facilitate operation of any vehicle as a stage carriage, the Act and Rules prescribe a fitness certificate to be granted by the Registering Authority and if there is a fitness certificate so granted, again it would not be competent for the Regional Transport Authority to look into the matter and decline the fitness already granted by the authority under the statute.

In such circumstance, the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority shall consider the application and shall issue the granted permit on the settled timings, for the vehicle sought to be substituted in the place of the earlier vehicle, subject however, to the vehicle satisfying all other conditions, including production of current records.

The writ petition is disposed of. The direction shall be complied within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment.