Minutes of Regional Transport Authority, Held on 25.09.2018 Present: 1. Sri. Amit Meena IAS, District Collector; Chairman of RTA, Malappuram. 2. Sri. Prateesh Kumar IPS, District Police Chief & Member, RTA Malappuram 3. Sri. M.P. Ajithkumar, Deputy Transport Commissioner (C Z 1); Member, RTA Item No.1 1. Heard. This is to re-consider the application for regular Stage Carriage permit to operate on the route Vilayil – Kozhikkode – Areacode , Vazhakkad, Mundumuzhi, Oorkkadavu, Peruvayil and Medical College and Poomkudi as ordinary service. 2. The application was placed before the RTA held on 06.01.2016 in Item No. 33 and the decision was adjourned for want of concurrence from Sister RTA, Kozhikkode for the portion of the proposed route passes through the Jurisdiction of that authority and the concurrence was obtained from Sister RTA Kozhikkode held on 04.10.2017 in Item No. 2. 3. The application was further considered by this authority held on 10.01.2018 in Item No.1 and the same was rejected in view of the directions stipulated by the STA held on 14.06.2017 in Departmental item 2 which categorically demands the production of a stage carriage with age less than eight years at the time of consideration of fresh stage carriage application. 4. Against the decision of RTA, the applicant has approached Hon. STAT and produced a Judgment in MVAA No. 94/2018 Dtd. 21.04.2018 and Hon. STAT has set aside the decision of RTA citing a number of directions from Hon. High Court that the production of a stage carriage is not mandatory for granting a regular stage carriage permit. Hon. STAT has further directed to grant fresh regular stage carriage permit sought by the appellant, if there is no other legal impediments. 5. This authority perused the directions contained in the Judgment in MVAA No. 94/2018 Dtd. 21.04.2018 f Hon. STAT. Also considered the objections raised by other en-route operators including the representative of KSRTC. However there was a submission by one Mr. Moosa Rahees P. S/o. Sri. Abdul Kader before this authority intimating the death of applicant in the open hearing of this authority on 25.09.2018. He has also produced a copy of death certificate issued by Kozhikkode Corporation. As per the certificate the applicant was died on 19.07.2018. His submission was to consider the application in his name. He has also further stated that he will produce the legal heirship certificate in near future. 6. We have considered the application and connected records in detail. There were objections before this authority in considering the application of a deceased person. We are of the common view that the objections raised in this regard are sustainable. There is no legal validity in considering the application of a person who is no more. This authority is of the view that this is a serious legal impediment. In this context,the application for fresh

1 stage carriage permit isrejected without considering other merits and demerits of the application.Mr. Moosa Rahees P. is free to place a fresh application before this authority on the very same route. Item No.2 Heard. This is to re-consider the modifiedapplication for fresh S/C permit to operate on the route – Tirunavaya Navamukunda Temple via. Vailathur, Kalpakancherry, Puthanathani, Cherulal, Patternadakkavu, Kunnumpuram and Thirunavaya with one single trip from Tirunavaya Navamukunda Temple to Tirur (via) Patternadakkavu, Vairankode and Ezhur and return trip from Tirur via Iringavoor modified in such a way that 13 single trips via. Pothannur as Ordinary Service.Previously, the application was considered by the RTA held on 24.10.2017 in Item No. 6 and the decision was adjourned by providing an opportunity to the applicant to modify the application. This authority verified the application and connected documents in detail. We have also considered all the objections raised in the open hearing of this authority including that of the KSRTC representative. Thus, we are of the common view that there is no legal impediment to grant regular permit as sought by the applicant. Therefore the regular permit on the proposed modified route is granted to a suitable stage carriage subject to settlement of timings, on production of current records of a vehicle as specified in the decision of STA held on 14.06.2017 in Departmental item 2 within thirty days of communication of this decision as per Rule 159[2] of KMV Rules 1989; failing which the grant of the regular permit will be treated as revoked without further notice. Item No.3 Heard. 1.This is to peruse the Judgments from Hon. STAT in a) MVARP No. 119/2017; Dtd. 21.10.2017 and b) MVAA No. 67/2018; Dtd. 31.03.2018 and also to re-consider the modified application for fresh Stage Carriage permit to operate on the route Ottumpuram-Tirur (via) Tanur, Puthiyakadappuram, Unniyal, Pookayil and Halt at Tanur as ordinary service. 2. The matter was placed before the RTA held on 25.01.2017 in Item No. 24 and the decision was adjourned directed to re-enquire the matter and a specific report from MVI is called for in the context of the objection that portion of the route Moolakkal – Tanur lies in complete exclusion portion of – Chelari notified scheme. 3. The RTA held on 30.05.2017 in Item no. 13 reconsidered the application afresh and rejected the same since portion of the route is passing through objectionable overlapping portion of notified portion. 4. Against the decision of RTA, the applicant has approached Hon. STAT and as per the Judgment of STAT in MVARP No. 119/2017; Dtd. 21.10.2017, directed to consider the modified proposal submitted by the applicant excluding the objectionable overlapping portion with the notified route.

2

5. The applicant has submitted a modified proposal and the same has been enquired through the Motor Vehicle Inspector of Tirur. 6. The matter was previously considered by RTA held on 10.01.2018 in item no. 9 and prima facie rejectedthe application without considering other merits and demerits as per the decision of STA held on 14.06.2017; Departmental Item No. 2, which categorically demands the production of a stage carriage with age less than eight years at the time of consideration of fresh stage carriage application. 7. Against the decision of RTA, the applicant has approached Hon. STAT and produced a Judgment in MVAA No. 67/2018 Dtd. 31.03.2018 and Hon. STAT has set aside the decision of RTA citing a number of directions from Hon. High Court that the production of a stage carriage is not mandatory for granting a regular stage carriage permit. Hon. STAT has further directed to grant fresh regular stage carriage permit sought by the appellant, if there is no other legal impediments. 8. This authority perused the directions contained in the aforesaid judgments. The application was re-considered and verified all related documents in detail. The objections raised in this regard were considered. Most of the objections including that of KSRTC were related to timing. Some of the en-route operators argued that the proposed route is passing through notified sector and the same is objectionable. We have verified the report of route enquiry officer in this regard and he has stated that, even though the modified route passes through the notified portion from Pookayil to Thazheppalam (1.7 Kms)which is not objectionable as per Ponnani – Chelari notified scheme. 9. Therefore the regular permit on the proposed modified route is granted to a suitable stage carriage subject to settlement of timings, on production of current records of a vehicle as specified in the decision of STA held on 14.06.2017 in Departmental item 2 within thirty days of communication of this decision as per Rule 159[2] of KMV Rules 1989; failing which the grant of the regular permit will be treated as revoked without further notice. Item No.4 Heard. 1. This is to peruse the Judgment from Hon STAT in a) MVAA No. 226/2017; Dtd. 21.10.2017 b) MVAA No. 88/2018; Dtd. 19.04.2018; also to re-consider the modified application for fresh S/C permit to operate on the route Chelari- – (via) Chenakalangadi, Mathapuzha, Mathapuzha – Koottumoochi Road, Paruthikkad, Sobhana, Athani, Anagadi, Kadalundikadavu, Chaliyam, Karuvanthuruthi, without touching railway station, Chettippadi, Kuppivalavu Stop, Koottumoochi, Kodakkad, Ullanam North, Ullanam South and Thayyilpadi as ordinary service. 3. The matter (previous application) was placed before the RTA held on 11.07.2016 in Item No. 38 and the decision was adjourned by directing concurrence from Sister RTA Kozhikkode.

3

4. The applicant has submitted a report of MVI, Kozhikkode and the matter was further considered by the RTA held on 25.10.2016 in Item No. 1 and again adjourned for want of concurrence from RTA, Kozhikkode. 5. The applicant has produced a Judgment from Hon High Court of in WP(C)No. 826 of 2017 Dtd. 03.03.2017 which directs RTA to dispose the application for regular permit in the next meeting itself. 6.The application was previously considered by the RTA held on 30.05.2017 in Item No. 7 and rejected since portion of the route passes through complete exclusion portion of the notified scheme Ponnani – Chelari. 7. Against the decision of RTA, the applicant has approached Hon. STAT in MVAA No. 226/2017 and Hon. STAT has opinioned that, the modified application submitted by the applicant without any objectionable overlapping, the RTA has to consider the same and pass orders within a period of four months. 8. The modified application was previously considered by RTA held on 10.01.2018 in item no. 9 and prima facie rejectedthe application without considering other merits and demerits as per the decision of STA held on 14.06.2017; Departmental Item No. 2, which categorically demands the production of a stage carriage with age less than eight years at the time of consideration of fresh stage carriage application. 9. Against the decision of RTA, the applicant has approached Hon. STAT and produced a Judgment in MVAA No. 88/2018 Dtd. 19.04.2018 and Hon. STAT has set aside the decision of RTA, citing a number of directions from Hon. High Court that the production of a stage carriage is not mandatory for granting a regular stage carriage permit. Hon. STAT has further directed to grant fresh regular stage carriage permit sought by the appellant, if there is no other legal impediments. 10. This authority perused the directions contained in the aforesaid judgments. The application was re-considered and verified all related documents in detail. The objections raised in this regard were considered. Upon examination of files and related documents, a portion of the route from Chaliyamkadavu to Feroke for a distance of 8.3 Kms passes through the jurisdiction of Sister RTA, Kozhikkode. No concurrence has been seen obtained from that RTA. Hence we are of the opinion that concurrence from Sister RTA, Kozhikkode is required to proceed further on this application. The Secretary, RTA Malappuram is directed to obtain concurrence from Sister RTA, Kozhikkode for the portion passes through the jurisdiction of that RTA and hence decision on this application is adjourned. Item No.5 Heard. 1. This is to peruse the directions contained in the Judgments of Hon. STAT in a) MVAA No. 179/2017 Dtd. 22.12.2017 and b) MVAA No. 125/2018 2. To re-consider the modified application for fresh S/C permit to operate on the route Thirunnavaya- as Ordinary Service. The applicant has modified his original

4 proposal by deviating the route from SSR Steels Junction on the NH 17 after Kanhippura Junction through Mount Hira International School to C.I. Office Junction on NH 17 to further reduce the overlapping. 3. The application along with the reports were placed before the RTA held on 25.01.2017 in Item No. 13. This authority has adjourned with the following major observations: 1) The secretary RTA is directed to conduct a re-enquiry on the entire route and submit a specific report mentioning the exact distance of overlapping with the notified sector. 2) Total running time has to be restricted to 8-9 hours 3) the applicant is directed to furnish the details of the vehicle to which the fresh permit is sought for, such as registration mark, type of vehicle, Seating Capacity and Maximum Laden Weight etc. required by item No. 6 to 8 in Form P.St.S.A as per section 70[1] Clause[f] of Motor Vehicles Act 1988. 4. Against the decision of RTA, the applicant has also produced a Judgment from Hon. High court of Kerala in WP(C) No. 821 of 2017 Dtd. 12.01.2017; which directs RTA Malappuram to take a final decision on the applications in the meeting scheduled on preferably on 25.01.2017. 5. In order to have a speedy disposal, as per the direction of the Chairman RTA, the application was circulated among the members of RTA on 25.07.2017 in Item No. 1and the RTA rejected the application since the overlapping with notified sectors is more than the permissible limitsas per clause 5 (c) of G.O. (P) No. 42/2009/Tran. Dtd. 14.07.2009. 6. Against the decision of the RTA, the applicant has filed appeal before the Hon. STAT and in the Judgment Hon. Tribunal has set aside the decision of RTA and further directed to hear the matter afresh as directed by the Hon. High Court of Kerala and pass orders in accordance with the principles of natural justice, after hearing all affected parties. 7. The matter was previously considered by RTA held on 10.01.2018 in item no. 4 and prima facie rejectedthe application without considering other merits and demerits as per the decision of STA held on 14.06.2017; Departmental Item No. 2, which categorically demands the production of a stage carriage with age less than eight years at the time of consideration of fresh stage carriage application. 8. Against the decision of RTA, the applicant has approached Hon. STAT and produced a Judgment in MVAA No. 125/2018 Dtd. 12.04.2018 and Hon. STAT set aside the decision of RTA citing a number of directions from Hon. High Court that the production of a stage carriage is not mandatory for granting a regular stage carriage permit. Hon. STAT has further directed to grant fresh regular stage carriage permit with the modified route, if any sought by the appellant, if there is no other legal impediments. 9. As per the report of route enquiry officer, there is a virgin portion of 700 Mts from SSR Steels to C.I. Office. As per records, this road belongs to Valancherry Municipality and the

5

Secretary, RTA has obtained a fitness certificate from the Assistant Engineer, Valancherry Municipality. As per the report, the above said portion of the route is fit for service under normal weather condition. In the open hearing of this authority there were a number of objections stating that the virgin portion is narrow and unfit for stage carriage operation. In the light of the objections this authority has further verified the road fitness certificate issued by the Assistant Engineer and the same is seems to be not specific and hence this authority could not take a right approach on this application. 10. The time proposed in the application is from 3.45 in the morning to 10.55 in the night. Thus the proposed stage carriage is operating around 19 hours on a daily basis. 11. In this context we are of the opinion that i) a revised road fitness certificate has to be called for from a competent officer, not below the rank of an Executive Engineer, PWD (R) for the virgin portion mentioned above. ii)Also, the Secretary, RTA will conduct a detailed enquiry on this application and explain the feasibility of stage carriage operation with such a long duration with respect to passenger safety aspects and report. Also the applicant has to file an affidavit before this authority that how he is going to operate this service in such a long duration with at least two sets of crew. Hence decision on this application is adjourned. Item No.6 Heard. 1. This is to peruse the directions contained in the Judgments of Hon. STAT in a) MVAA No. 187/2017 Dtd. 22.12.2017 and b) MVAA No. 123/2018 2. To re-consider the modified application for fresh S/C permit to operate on the route Thirunnavaya-Valanchery as Ordinary Service. The applicant has modified his original proposal by deviating the route from SSR Steels Junction on the NH 17 after Kanhippura Junction through Mount Hira International School to C.I. Office Junction on NH 17 to further reduce the overlapping. 3. The application along with the reports were placed before the RTA held on 25.01.2017 in Item No. 15. This authority has adjourned with the following major observations: 1) The secretary RTA is directed to conduct a re-enquiry on the entire route and submit a specific report mentioning the exact distance of overlapping with the notified sector. 2) Total running time has to be restricted to 8-9 hours 3) the applicant is directed to furnish the details of the vehicle to which the fresh permit is sought for, such as registration mark, type of vehicle, Seating Capacity and Maximum Laden Weight etc. required by item No. 6 to 8 in Form P.St.S.A as per section 70[1] Clause[f] of Motor Vehicles Act 1988.

6

4. Against the decision of RTA, the applicant has also produced a Judgment from Hon. High court of Kerala in WP(C) No. 821 of 2017 Dtd. 12.01.2017; which directs RTA Malappuram to take a final decision on the applications in the meeting scheduled on preferably on 25.01.2017. 5. In order to have a speedy disposal, as per the direction of the Chairman RTA, the application was circulated among the members of RTA on 25.07.2017 in Item No. 2 and the RTA rejected the application since the overlapping with notified sectors is more than the permissible limits as per clause 5 (c) of G.O. (P) No. 42/2009/Tran. Dtd. 14.07.2009. 6. Against the decision of the RTA, the applicant has filed appeal before the Hon. STAT and in the Judgment Hon. Tribunal has set aside the decision of RTA and further directed to hear the matter afresh as directed by the Hon. High Court of Kerala and pass orders in accordance with the principles of natural justice, after hearing all affected parties. 7. The matter was previously considered by RTA held on 10.01.2018 in item no. 5 and prima facie rejectedthe application without considering other merits and demerits as per the decision of STA held on 14.06.2017; Departmental Item No. 2, which categorically demands the production of a stage carriage with age less than eight years at the time of consideration of fresh stage carriage application. 8. Against the decision of RTA, the applicant has approached Hon. STAT and produced a Judgment in MVAA No. 123/2018 Dtd. 12.04.2018 and Hon. STAT set aside the decision of RTA citing a number of directions from Hon. High Court that the production of a stage carriage is not mandatory for granting a regular stage carriage permit. Hon. STAT has further directed to grant fresh regular stage carriage permit with the modified route, if any sought by the appellant, if there is no other legal impediments. 9. As per the report of route enquiry officer, there is a virgin portion of 700 Mts from SSR Steels to C.I. Office. As per records, this road belongs to Valancherry Municipality and the Secretary, RTA has obtained a fitness certificate from the Assistant Engineer, Valancherry Municipality. As per the report, the above said portion of the route is fit for service under normal weather condition. In the open hearing of this authority there were a number of objections stating that the virgin portion is narrow and unfit for stage carriage operation. In the light of the objections this authority has further verified the road fitness certificate issued by the Assistant Engineer and the same is seems to be not specific and hence this authority could not take a right approach on this application. 10. The time proposed in the application is from 3.30 in the morning to 11 in the night. Thus the proposed stage carriage is operating more than 19 hours on a daily basis. 11. In this context we are of the opinion that i) a revised road fitness certificate has to be called for from a competent officer, not below the rank of an Executive Engineer, PWD (R) for the virgin portion mentioned above.

7

ii) Also, the Secretary, RTA will conduct a detailed enquiry on this application and explain the feasibility of stage carriage operation with such a long duration with respect to passenger safety aspects and report. Also the applicant has to file an affidavit before this authority that how he is going to operate this service in such a long duration with at least two sets of crew. Hence decision on this application is adjourned. Item No.7 Heard. 1. This is to peruse the directions contained in the Judgments of Hon. STAT in a) MVAA No. 188/2017 Dtd. 22.12.2017 and b) MVAA No. 124/2018 2. To re-consider the modified application for fresh S/C permit to operate on the route Thirunnavaya-Valanchery as Ordinary Service. The applicant has modified his original proposal by deviating the route from SSR Steels Junction on the NH 17 after Kanhippura Junction through Mount Hira International School to C.I. Office Junction on NH 17 to further reduce the overlapping. 3. The application along with the reports were placed before the RTA held on 25.01.2017 in Item No. 16. This authority has adjourned with the following major observations: 1) The secretary RTA is directed to conduct a re-enquiry on the entire route and submit a specific report mentioning the exact distance of overlapping with the notified sector. 2) Total running time has to be restricted to 8-9 hours 3) the applicant is directed to furnish the details of the vehicle to which the fresh permit is sought for, such as registration mark, type of vehicle, Seating Capacity and Maximum Laden Weight etc. required by item No. 6 to 8 in Form P.St.S.A as per section 70[1] Clause[f] of Motor Vehicles Act 1988. 4. Against the decision of RTA, the applicant has also produced a Judgment from Hon. High court of Kerala in WP(C) No. 821 of 2017 Dtd. 12.01.2017; which directs RTA Malappuram to take a final decision on the applications in the meeting scheduled on preferably on 25.01.2017. 5. In order to have a speedy disposal, as per the direction of the Chairman RTA, the application was circulated among the members of RTA on 25.07.2017 in Item No. 3 and the RTA rejected the application since the overlapping with notified sectors is more than the permissible limits as per clause 5 (c) of G.O. (P) No. 42/2009/Tran. Dtd. 14.07.2009. 6. Against the decision of the RTA, the applicant has filed appeal before the Hon. STAT and in the Judgment Hon. Tribunal has set aside the decision of RTA and further directed to hear the matter afresh as directed by the Hon. High Court of Kerala and pass orders in accordance with the principles of natural justice, after hearing all affected parties.

8

7. The matter was previously considered by RTA held on 10.01.2018 in item no. 6 and prima facie rejectedthe application without considering other merits and demerits as per the decision of STA held on 14.06.2017; Departmental Item No. 2, which categorically demands the production of a stage carriage with age less than eight years at the time of consideration of fresh stage carriage application. 8. Against the decision of RTA, the applicant has approached Hon. STAT and produced a Judgment in MVAA No. 124/2018 Dtd. 12.04.2018 and Hon. STAT set aside the decision of RTA citing a number of directions from Hon. High Court that the production of a stage carriage is not mandatory for granting a regular stage carriage permit. Hon. STAT has further directed to grant fresh regular stage carriage permit with the modified route, if any sought by the appellant, if there is no other legal impediments. 9. As per the report of route enquiry officer, there is a virgin portion of 700 Mts from SSR Steels to C.I. Office. As per records, this road belongs to Valancherry Municipality and the Secretary, RTA has obtained a fitness certificate from the Assistant Engineer, Valancherry Municipality. As per the report, the above said portion of the route is fit for service under normal weather condition. In the open hearing of this authority there were a number of objections stating that the virgin portion is narrow and unfit for stage carriage operation. In the light of the objections this authority has further verified the road fitness certificate issued by the Assistant Engineer and the same is seems to be not specific and hence this authority could not take a right approach on this application. 10. The time proposed in the application is from 4 in the morning to 11.30 in the night. Thus the proposed stage carriage is operating around 19 hours on a daily basis. 11. In this context we are of the opinion that i) a revised road fitness certificate has to be called for from a competent officer, not below the rank of an Executive Engineer, PWD (R) for the virgin portion mentioned above. ii) Also, the Secretary, RTA will conduct a detailed enquiry on this application and explain the feasibility of stage carriage operation with such a long duration with respect to passenger safety aspects and report. Also the applicant has to file an affidavit before this authority that how he is going to operate this service in such a long duration with at least two sets of crew. Hence decision on this application is adjourned. Item No.8 Heard. 1. This is to peruse the directions contained in the Judgments of Hon. STAT in a) MVAA No. 188/2017 Dtd. 22.12.2017 and b) MVAA No. 122/2018 2. To re-consider the modified application for fresh S/C permit to operate on the route Thirunnavaya-Valanchery as Ordinary Service. The applicant has modified his original proposal by deviating the route from SSR Steels Junction on the NH 17 after Kanhippura

9

Junction through Mount Hira International School to C.I. Office Junction on NH 17 to further reduce the overlapping. 3. The application along with the reports were placed before the RTA held on 25.01.2017 in Item No. 17. This authority has adjourned with the following major observations: 1) The secretary RTA is directed to conduct a re-enquiry on the entire route and submit a specific report mentioning the exact distance of overlapping with the notified sector. 2) Total running time has to be restricted to 8-9 hours 3) the applicant is directed to furnish the details of the vehicle to which the fresh permit is sought for, such as registration mark, type of vehicle, Seating Capacity and Maximum Laden Weight etc. required by item No. 6 to 8 in Form P.St.S.A as per section 70[1] Clause[f] of Motor Vehicles Act 1988. 4. Against the decision of RTA, the applicant has also produced a Judgment from Hon. High court of Kerala in WP(C) No. 821 of 2017 Dtd. 12.01.2017; which directs RTA Malappuram to take a final decision on the applications in the meeting scheduled on preferably on 25.01.2017. 5. In order to have a speedy disposal, as per the direction of the Chairman RTA, the application was circulated among the members of RTA on 25.07.2017 in Item No. 4 and the RTA rejected the application since the overlapping with notified sectors is more than the permissible limits as per clause 5 (c) of G.O. (P) No. 42/2009/Tran. Dtd. 14.07.2009. 6. Against the decision of the RTA, the applicant has filed appeal before the Hon. STAT and in the Judgment Hon. Tribunal has set aside the decision of RTA and further directed to hear the matter afresh as directed by the Hon. High Court of Kerala and pass orders in accordance with the principles of natural justice, after hearing all affected parties. 7. The matter was previously considered by RTA held on 10.01.2018 in item no. 7 and prima facie rejectedthe application without considering other merits and demerits as per the decision of STA held on 14.06.2017; Departmental Item No. 2, which categorically demands the production of a stage carriage with age less than eight years at the time of consideration of fresh stage carriage application. 8. Against the decision of RTA, the applicant has approached Hon. STAT and produced a Judgment in MVAA No. 122/2018 Dtd. 12.04.2018 and Hon. STAT set aside the decision of RTA citing a number of directions from Hon. High Court that the production of a stage carriage is not mandatory for granting a regular stage carriage permit. Hon. STAT has further directed to grant fresh regular stage carriage permit with the modified route, if any sought by the appellant, if there is no other legal impediments. 9. As per the report of route enquiry officer, there is a virgin portion of 700 Mts from SSR Steels to C.I. Office. As per records, this road belongs to Valancherry Municipality and the Secretary, RTA has obtained a fitness certificate from the Assistant Engineer, Valancherry

10

Municipality. As per the report, the above said portion of the route is fit for service under normal weather condition. In the open hearing of this authority there were a number of objections stating that the virgin portion is narrow and unfit for stage carriage operation. In the light of the objections this authority has further verified the road fitness certificate issued by the Assistant Engineer and the same is seems to be not specific and hence this authority could not take a right approach on this application. 10. The time proposed in the application is from 4.15 in the morning to 11.51 in the night. Thus the proposed stage carriage is operating around 19 hours on a daily basis. 11. In this context we are of the opinion that i) a revised road fitness certificate has to be called for from a competent officer, not below the rank of an Executive Engineer, PWD (R) for the virgin portion mentioned above. ii) Also, the Secretary, RTA will conduct a detailed enquiry on this application and explain the feasibility of stage carriage operation with such a long duration with respect to passenger safety aspects and report. Also the applicant has to file an affidavit before this authority that how he is going to operate this service in such a long duration with at least two sets of crew. Hence decision on this application is adjourned. Item No. 9 Heard. 1. This is to peruse the Judgment from Hon. High Court of Kerala in WP(C) No. 4879 of 2018 and Judgment from Hon. STAT in 212/2018; Dtd. 12.07.2018. 2. To re-consider the application for fresh S/C permit to operate on the route Tirur – via. Vylathur, Kuttippala, Edarikkode, Chnankuvetti, , Othukkungal, Ponmala, Malappuram, Munduparamba Govt. College, Irumbuzhi, Anakkayam, Medical College, , Nellikkuth, Pandikkad, Thuvvur, Punnakkad and KaruvarakkundeKizhakkethala as Ordinary Service. 3. The matter was previously considered by RTA held on 19.04.2018 in item no. 6 and prima facie rejectedthe application without considering other merits and demerits as per the decision of STA held on 14.06.2017; Departmental Item No. 2, which categorically demands the production of a stage carriage with age less than eight years at the time of consideration of fresh stage carriage application. 4. Against the decision of RTA, the applicant has approached Hon. STAT and produced a Judgment in MVAA No. 212/2018 Dtd. 12.07.2018 and Hon. STAT has set aside the decision of RTA citing a number of directions from Hon. High Court that the production of a stage carriage is not mandatory for granting a regular stage carriage permit. Hon. STAT has further directed to grant fresh regular stage carriage permit sought by the appellant, if there is no other legal impediments.

11

5. We have perused the directions contained in the aforesaid judgment of Hon. High Court of Kerala and Hon. STAT; re-considered the application; verified reports and connected files. There were a number of objections raised on the application in the open hearing of this authority and those were considered as per law. 6. We could not find any legal impediment in granting the above application for fresh stage carriage permit. Thus the regular permit on the proposed route is granted to a suitable stage carriage subject to settlement of timings, on production of current records of a vehicle as specified in the decision of STA held on 14.06.2017 in Departmental item 2 within thirty days of communication of this decision as per Rule 159[2] of KMV Rules 1989; failing which the grant of the regular permit will be treated as revoked without further notice. Item No.10 Heard. 1.This is to peruse the Judgment from Hon. High Court of Kerala in WP(C) No. 5761 of 2018 and Judgment from Hon. STAT in MVAA No. 211/2018; Dtd. 12.07.2018 and also 2. To re-consider the application for fresh S/C permit to operate on the route Kalikavu – Tirur via. Karuvarakunde-Kizhakkethala, Punnakkad, Thuvvur, KizhakkePandikkad, Pandikkad, Nellikkuth, Manjeri (halt at Manjeri) Anakkayam, Munduparamba Govt. College, Malappuram, Ponmala, Othukkungal, Kottakkal, Chankuvetti, Edarikkode, Kuttippala and Vylathur as Ordinary Service 3. The application was considered by the RTA held on 24.10.2017 in Item No. 12 and the decision was adjourned with a direction to obtain a specific report with vehicle statistics. 4. Meanwhile the applicant has approached Hon. High Court of Kerala and in WP(C) No. 4879 of 2018 and Hon. High Court has directed to consider the application and take a final decision in the next meeting itself. 5. The matter was previously considered by RTA held on 19.04.2018 in item no. 7 and prima facie rejectedthe application without considering other merits and demerits as per the decision of STA held on 14.06.2017; Departmental Item No. 2, which categorically demands the production of a stage carriage with age less than eight years at the time of consideration of fresh stage carriage application. 6. Against the decision of RTA, the applicant has approached Hon. STAT and produced a Judgment in MVAA No. 211/2018 Dtd. 12.07.2018 and Hon. STAT has set aside the decision of RTA citing a number of directions from Hon. High Court that the production of a stage carriage is not mandatory for granting a regular stage carriage permit. Hon. STAT has further directed to grant fresh regular stage carriage permit sought by the appellant, if there is no other legal impediments. 7. We have perused the directions contained in the aforesaid judgment of Hon. STAT; re- considered the application; verified reports and connected files. There were a number of objections raised on the application in the open hearing of this authority and those were considered as per law. We could not find any legal impediment in granting the above

12 application for fresh stage carriage permit. Thus the regular permit on the proposed route is granted to a suitable stage carriage subject to settlement of timings, on production of current records of a vehicle as specified in the decision of STA held on 14.06.2017 in Departmental item 2 within thirty days of communication of this decision as per Rule 159[2] of KMV Rules 1989; failing which the grant of the regular permit will be treated as revoked without further notice. Item No. 11 Heard. 1. This is to peruse the Judgment from Hon STAT in MVAA No. 157/2018 Dtd. 25.05.2018 and 2. To re-consider the application for fresh stage carriage permit to operate on the route – Kuttippuram – Tirur (via) Kavilakkad, Kurumpadi, Mangalam, Pullonni, Alathiyoor, Thuprangode, Codakkal, Thirunavaya and Chembi and B.P. Angadi, Tirur Thazheppalam as Ordinary Service. 3. The matter was previously considered by RTA held on 10.01.2018 in item no. 12 and prima facie rejectedthe application without considering other merits and demerits as per the decision of STA held on 14.06.2017; Departmental Item No. 2, which categorically demands the production of a stage carriage with age less than eight years at the time of consideration of fresh stage carriage application. 4. Against the decision of RTA, the applicant has approached Hon. STAT and produced a Judgment in MVAA No. 157/2018 Dtd. 25.05.2018 and Hon. STAT has set aside the decision of RTA citing a number of directions from Hon. High Court that the production of a stage carriage is not mandatory for granting a regular stage carriage permit. Hon. STAT has further directed to grant fresh regular stage carriage permit sought by the appellant, if there is no other legal impediments. 5. We have perused the directions contained in the aforesaid judgment of Hon. STAT; re- considered the application; verified reports and connected files. There were a number of objections raised on the application in the open hearing of this authority and those were considered as per law. We could not find any legal impediment in granting the above application for fresh stage carriage permit. Thus the regular permit on the proposed route is granted to a suitable stage carriage subject to settlement of timings, on production of current records of a vehicle as specified in the decision of STA held on 14.06.2017 in Departmental item 2 within thirty days of communication of this decision as per Rule 159[2] of KMV Rules 1989; failing which the grant of the regular permit will be treated as revoked without further notice. Item No.12 Heard. This is to peruse the Judgment from Hon. STAT in MVAA No.163/2018; Dtd. 18.06.2018 and also to re-consider the application for fresh stage carriage permit to operate on the

13 route Kalikavu – Tirur via. Karuvarakunde Kizhakkethala, Punnakkad, Thuvvur, Kizhakke Pandikkad, Pandikkad, Nellikkuth, Manjeri (halt at Manjeri) Anakkayam, Munduparamba Govt. College, Malappuram, Ponmala, Othukkungal, Kottakkal, Chankuvetti, Edarikkode, Kuttippala and Vylathur as Ordinary Service. The matter was previously considered by RTA held on 10.01.2018 in item no. 15 and prima facie rejectedthe application without considering other merits and demerits as per the decision of STA held on 14.06.2017; Departmental Item No. 2, which categorically demands the production of a stage carriage with age less than eight years at the time of consideration of fresh stage carriage application. Against the decision of RTA, the applicant has approached Hon. STAT and produced a Judgment in MVAA No. 163/2018 Dtd. 18.06.2018 and Hon. STAT has set aside the decision of RTA citing a number of directions from Hon. High Court that the production of a stage carriage is not mandatory for granting a regular stage carriage permit. Hon. STAT has further directed to grant fresh regular stage carriage permit sought by the appellant, if there is no other legal impediments. We have perused the directions contained in the aforesaid judgment of Hon. STAT; re- considered the application; verified reports and connected files. There were a number of objections raised on the application in the open hearing of this authority and those were considered as per law. We could not find any legal impediment in granting the above application for fresh stage carriage permit. Thus the regular permit on the proposed route is granted to a suitable stage carriage subject to settlement of timings, on production of current records of a vehicle as specified in the decision of STA held on 14.06.2017 in Departmental item 2 within thirty days of communication of this decision as per Rule 159[2] of KMV Rules 1989; failing which the grant of the regular permit will be treated as revoked without further notice. Item No.13 Heard. This is to peruse the Judgment from Hon. STAT in MVAA No. 184/2018 Dtd. 28.06.2018and also to re-consider the application for regular Stage Carriage permit to operate on the route – Areacode (via) Mundakkulam, Muthuparamba, Pothuvettipara, Mundakkal, Cheruparamba and Vavoor Road and touching Kizhisseri in the morning from Pothuvettipara via. Onnam Miles 2 singles and halt at Pothuvettipara as Ordinary Service. The application was previously considered by the RTA held on 31.08.2017 in Item No. 15 and the matter was adjourned for want of a specific road fitness certificate. The matter was communicated to the Secretary, Cheakode Grama Panchayath and revised report has been obtained. The application was further considered by RTA held on 19.01.2018 in item no. 4 and prima facie rejectedthe application without considering other merits and demerits as per the decision of STA held on 14.06.2017; Departmental Item No. 2, which categorically

14 demands the production of a stage carriage with age less than eight years at the time of consideration of fresh stage carriage application. Against the decision of RTA, the applicant approached Hon. STAT and produced a Judgment in MVAA No. 184/2018 Dtd. 28.06.2018; In its judgment, Hon. STAT set aside the decision of RTA citing a number of directions from Hon. High Court that the production of a stage carriage is not mandatory for granting a regular stage carriage permit. Hon. STAT has further directed to grant fresh regular stage carriage permit sought by the appellant, if there is no other legal impediments. We have perused the directions contained in the aforesaid judgment of Hon. STAT; re- considered the application; verified reports and connected files. There were a number of objections raised on the application in the open hearing of this authority and those were considered as per law. We could not find any legal impediment in granting the above application for fresh stage carriage permit. Thus the regular permit on the proposed route is granted to a suitable stage carriage subject to settlement of timings, on production of current records of a vehicle as specified in the decision of STA held on 14.06.2017 in Departmental item 2 within thirty days of communication of this decision as per Rule 159[2] of KMV Rules 1989; failing which the grant of the regular permit will be treated as revoked without further notice. Item No.14 Heard. This to peruse the judgment from Hon. STAT in MVAA No. 84/2018; Dtd. 12.04.2018 and also to re-consider the application for fresh stage carriage permit to operate on the route Kadambuzha – Thirunavaya – Kottakkal – Tirur (via) Vettichira, Puthanathani, Pattarnadakkavu, Marakkara, Athani, Kottappadi, Alinchuvadu, Alikkal, Randathani, Moochikkal, Kurukathani, Kadungathukundu, Thirunavaya, Elikkattiriparamba, Ezhur, Vailathur, Kalpakancherry, Randal, Thuvvakkad as Ordinary Service. The matter was previously considered by RTA held on 10.01.2018 in item no. 17 and prima facie rejectedthe application without considering other merits and demerits as per the decision of STA held on 14.06.2017; Departmental Item No. 2, which categorically demands the production of a stage carriage with age less than eight years at the time of consideration of fresh stage carriage application. Against the decision of RTA, the applicant has approached Hon. STAT and produced a Judgment in MVAA No. 84/2018 Dtd. 12.04.2018 and Hon. STAT has set aside the decision of RTA citing a number of directions from Hon. High Court that the production of a stage carriage is not mandatory for granting a regular stage carriage permit. Hon. STAT has further directed to grant fresh regular stage carriage permit sought by the appellant, if there is no other legal impediments. We have perused the directions contained in the aforesaid judgment of Hon. STAT; re- considered the application; verified reports and connected files. There were a number of

15 objections raised on the application in the open hearing of this authority and those were considered as per law. We could not find any legal impediment in granting the above application for fresh stage carriage permit. Thus the regular permit on the proposed route is granted to a suitable stage carriage subject to settlement of timings, on production of current records of a vehicle as specified in the decision of STA held on 14.06.2017 in Departmental item 2 within thirty days of communication of this decision as per Rule 159[2] of KMV Rules 1989; failing which the grant of the regular permit will be treated as revoked without further notice. Item No.15 Heard. This is to peruse the Judgment from Hon. STAT in MVAA No. 95/2018; Dtd. 21.04.2018 and also to re-consider the application for fresh stage carriage permit to operate on the route Moolappuram – Edavannappara – Ramanattukara – (via) Chunkapalli, Chnnayil Palliyali, Akkode, Mundumuzhi, Vazhakkad, Punchappadam, Karad, Azhinhillam, Thali, Bhavana Stop, Anakkundu and Seva Mandiram and Thiruthiyad as Ordinary Service. The matter was previously considered by RTA held on 10.01.2018 in item no. 16 and prima facie rejectedthe application without considering other merits and demerits as per the decision of STA held on 14.06.2017; Departmental Item No. 2, which categorically demands the production of a stage carriage with age less than eight years at the time of consideration of fresh stage carriage application. Against the decision of RTA, the applicant has approached Hon. STAT and produced a Judgment in MVAA No. 95/2018 Dtd. 21.04.2018 and Hon. STAT has set aside the decision of RTA citing a number of directions from Hon. High Court that the production of a stage carriage is not mandatory for granting a regular stage carriage permit. Hon. STAT has further directed to grant fresh regular stage carriage permit sought by the appellant, if there is no other legal impediments. We have perused the directions contained in the aforesaid judgment of Hon. STAT; re- considered the application; verified reports and connected files. There were a number of objections raised on the application in the open hearing of this authority and those were considered as per law. As per the report of route enquiry officer, there is an overlapping of 3.8 Kms in the jurisdiction of Sister RTA, Kozhikkode. This authority is of the view that this is a legal impediment to grant this permit; concurrence has to be obtained from RTA, Kozhikkode for the portion overlapping with that RTA. Hence the Secretary, RTA is directed to obtain concurrence from RTA, Kozhikkode and place before this authority. Decision on this application is adjourned.

16

Item No. 16 Heard. This is to peruse the Judgment of Hon. STAT in MVAA No. 85/2018 Dtd. 12.04.2018 and also to re-consider the application for fresh stage carriage permit to operate on the route Manjeri -Tirur – Kalikavu via. Vylathur, Kuttippala, Edarikkode, Chnankuvetti, Kottakkal, Othukkungal, Ponmala, Malappuram, Munduparamba Govt. College, Irumbuzhi, Anakkayam, Medical College, Manjeri, Nellikkuth, Pandikkad, Thuvvur, Punnakkad and Karuvarakkunde Kizhakkethala as Ordinary Service. The matter was previously considered by RTA held on 10.01.2018 in item no. 15 and prima facie rejectedthe application without considering other merits and demerits as per the decision of STA held on 14.06.2017; Departmental Item No. 2, which categorically demands the production of a stage carriage with age less than eight years at the time of consideration of fresh stage carriage application. Against the decision of RTA, the applicant has approached Hon. STAT and produced a Judgment in MVAA No. 85/2018 Dtd. 12.04.2018 and Hon. STAT has set aside the decision of RTA citing a number of directions from Hon. High Court that the production of a stage carriage is not mandatory for granting a regular stage carriage permit. Hon. STAT has further directed to grant fresh regular stage carriage permit sought by the appellant, if there is no other legal impediments. We have perused the directions contained in the aforesaid judgment of Hon. STAT; re- considered the application; verified reports and connected files. There were a number of objections raised on the application in the open hearing of this authority and those were considered as per law. We could not find any legal impediment in granting the above application for fresh stage carriage permit. Thus the regular permit on the proposed route is granted to a suitable stage carriage subject to settlement of timings, on production of current records of a vehicle as specified in the decision of STA held on 14.06.2017 in Departmental item 2 within thirty days of communication of this decision as per Rule 159[2] of KMV Rules 1989; failing which the grant of the regular permit will be treated as revoked without further notice. Item No.17 Heard. This isto peruse the Judgment from Hon. STAT in MVAA No. 160/2018 Dtd. 25.05.2018and also to re-consider the application for fresh stage carriage permit to operate on the route Kondotty – Kozhikkode Palayam Stand (via) Neerad, Omanur, Edavannappara, Vazhakkad, Mundumuzhi, Oorkkadavu, Pallithazham, Peruvayal, Poovatuparamba, Kuttikkattoor, Medical College Hospital, Thondayad, Palayam Stand touching Moffussil Bus Stand Kozhikkode and touching Areacode (via) Poomkudi (2 singles) with halt at Edavannappara as Ordinary Service.

17

The matter was previously considered by RTA held on 10.01.2018 in item no. 23 and prima facie rejectedthe application without considering other merits and demerits as per the decision of STA held on 14.06.2017; Departmental Item No. 2, which categorically demands the production of a stage carriage with age less than eight years at the time of consideration of fresh stage carriage application. Against the decision of RTA, the applicant has approached Hon. STAT and produced a Judgment in MVAA No. 160/2018 Dtd. 25.05.2018 and Hon. STAT has set aside the decision of RTA citing a number of directions from Hon. High Court that the production of a stage carriage is not mandatory for granting a regular stage carriage permit. Hon. STAT has further directed to grant fresh regular stage carriage permit sought by the appellant, if there is no other legal impediments. We have perused the directions contained in the aforesaid judgment of Hon. STAT; re- considered the application; verified reports and connected files. There were a number of objections raised on the application in the open hearing of this authority and those were considered as per law. As per the report of route enquiry officer, there is an overlapping of 20.1 Kms in the jurisdiction of Sister RTA, Kozhikkode. This authority is of the view that this is a legal impediment to grant this permit; concurrence has to be obtained from RTA, Kozhikkode for the portion overlapping with that RTA. Hence the Secretary, RTA is directed to obtain concurrence from RTA, Kozhikkode and place before this authority. Decision on this application is adjourned. Item No.18 Heard. This is to peruse the Judgment from Hon. STAT in MVAA no. 79/2018; Dtd. 12.04.2018 and also to re-consider the application for fresh stage carriage permit to operate on the route Tirur – Perinthallur with Perinthallur – Cheriya Parappur cut trips (via) Thazhepalam, B P Angadi Kannamkulam Musiliyarangadi, Hanumankavu, Kainikara, Karathur, Codackal, Beeranchira and Cheriya Parappur as Ordinary Service. The matter was previously considered by RTA held on 10.01.2018 in item no. 9 and prima facie rejectedthe application without considering other merits and demerits as per the decision of STA held on 14.06.2017; Departmental Item No. 2, which categorically demands the production of a stage carriage with age less than eight years at the time of consideration of fresh stage carriage application. Against the decision of RTA, the applicant has approached Hon. STAT and produced a Judgment in MVAA No. 79/2018 Dtd. 12.04.2018 and Hon. STAT has set aside the decision of RTA citing a number of directions from Hon. High Court that the production of a stage carriage is not mandatory for granting a regular stage carriage permit. Hon. STAT has further directed to grant fresh regular stage carriage permit sought by the appellant, if there is no other legal impediments.

18

We have perused the directions contained in the aforesaid judgment of Hon. STAT; re- considered the application; verified reports and connected files. There were a number of objections raised on the application in the open hearing of this authority and those were considered as per law. We could not find any legal impediment in granting the above application for fresh stage carriage permit. Thus the regular permit on the proposed route is granted to a suitable stage carriage subject to settlement of timings, on production of current records of a vehicle as specified in the decision of STA held on 14.06.2017 in Departmental item 2 within thirty days of communication of this decision as per Rule 159[2] of KMV Rules 1989; failing which the grant of the regular permit will be treated as revoked without further notice. Item No.19 Erratum Agenda approved. Item deleted. Item No. 20 Heard. This is to consider the application for fresh S/C permit to operate on the route Cherekkad – Vengara (via) Colony Road, Kunnumpuram, Kakkadampuram, Kuttur, Padapparamba, Muttumparam, Poocholamadu also via. Cheroor and Achanambalam with Vengara – Manhengara 2 single trips via.Cheroor and Vengara – Koottumalapparamba 2 single trips (via) Kuttaloor Jn., Navodaya and Cherattuparamba as Ordinary Service.We have considered the application; verified reports and connected files. There were a number of objections raised on the application in the open hearing of this authority and those were considered as per law. As per the report of Motor Vehicle Inspector, there is no legal impediment to grant the permit. Thus the regular permit on the proposed route is granted to a suitable stage carriage subject to settlement of timings, on production of current records of a vehicle as specified in the decision of STA held on 14.06.2017 in Departmental item 2 within thirty days of communication of this decision as per Rule 159[2] of KMV Rules 1989; failing which the grant of the regular permit will be treated as revoked without further notice. Item No.21 Heard. This is to peruse the Judgment from Hon. High Court of Kerala in WP(C) No. 13811 of 2018 Dtd. 20.04.2018 and also to re-consider the application for fresh stage carriage permit to operate on the route Tirur – Puthanathani – Thirunavaya (via) Ezhur, Elikkattiriparamba, Vairankode, Myladiyil Road, AES touching Alloor, Medipara, Randal, Kuttikkalathani, Puthanathani, Patternadakkavu; Halt at Vairankode as Ordinary Service. The matter was previously considered by RTA held on 10.01.2018 in item no. 25 and prima facie rejectedthe application without considering other merits and demerits as per the decision of STA held on 14.06.2017; Departmental Item No. 2, which categorically demands

19 the production of a stage carriage with age less than eight years at the time of consideration of fresh stage carriage application. Against the decision of RTA, the applicant has approached Hon. High Court of Kerala and produced a Judgment in WP(C) No. 13811 of 2018 Dtd. 20.04.2018 and Hon. High Court has stated that the decision of RTA is illegal since the same was passed without providing an opportunity of hearing the petitioner and also there will be direction to re-consider the application in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Hon. STAT has further directed to grant fresh regular stage carriage permit sought by the appellant, if there is no other legal impediments. We have perused the directions contained in the aforesaid judgment of Hon. STAT; re- considered the application; verified reports and connected files. There were a number of objections raised on the application in the open hearing of this authority and those were considered as per law. We could not find any legal impediment in granting the above application for fresh stage carriage permit. Thus the regular permit on the proposed route is granted to a suitable stage carriage subject to settlement of timings, on production of current records of a vehicle as specified in the decision of STA held on 14.06.2017 in Departmental item 2 within thirty days of communication of this decision as per Rule 159[2] of KMV Rules 1989; failing which the grant of the regular permit will be treated as revoked without further notice. Item No. 22 Heard. This is to consider the application for fresh S/C permit to operate on the route Kottakkal – Vengara – Jawahar Navodaya School - Puthuparamba – Kottappuram – Malappuram (via) Iringalloor, Atteri, Kuzhippuram, Kavala, Pottikkallu, Kaipatta, Umminikadavu, Chankuvetti, AVS College Jn., Kavathikalam, Indianoor, Kooriad, Thalakkappu, Thottappai, Kottappuram, Cherukunnu, Othukkungal, Ponmala as Ordinary Service. We have considered the application; verified reports and connected files. There were a number of objections raised on the application in the open hearing of this authority and those were considered as per law. As per the report of Motor Vehicle Inspector, there is no legal impediment to grant the permit. Thus the regular permit on the proposed route is granted to a suitable stage carriage subject to settlement of timings, on production of current records of a vehicle as specified in the decision of STA held on 14.06.2017 in Departmental item 2 within thirty days of communication of this decision as per Rule 159[2] of KMV Rules 1989; failing which the grant of the regular permit will be treated as revoked without further notice.

20

Item No. 23 Heard. This is to consider the application for fresh S/C permit to operate on the route Tanur – Tirur (via) Puthiyakadappuram, Unniyal, Paravanna, Thunjanparamba and Poongottukulam; Halt at Unniyal as Ordinary Service. We have considered the application; verified reports and connected files. There were a number of objections raised on the application in the open hearing of this authority and those were considered as per law. As per the report of Motor Vehicle Inspector, there is no legal impediment to grant the permit. Thus the regular permit on the proposed route is granted to a suitable stage carriage subject to settlement of timings, on production of current records of a vehicle as specified in the decision of STA held on 14.06.2017 in Departmental item 2 within thirty days of communication of this decision as per Rule 159[2] of KMV Rules 1989; failing which the grant of the regular permit will be treated as revoked without further notice. Item No.24 Heard. This is to peruse the Judgment from Hon. STAT in MVAA No. 180/2018 Dtd. 21.06.2018 and also to re-consider the application for regular Stage Carriage permit to operate on the route Kunnumpuram – Chemmad (via) Thottasseri Ara, Puthiyedathpuraya, Yarathumpadi, Chendapuraya, V K padi, Mampuram Road, Mampuram Makham and Mampuram Bridge with Halt at Puthuparamba (starting single trip from Puthuparamba via. Mini bazaar, Muthalamad, Kooriyad, Kakkad, Kolappuram and A R Nagar and halting single trip from V K Padi via. Kolappuram as Ordinary Service. The matter was previously considered by RTA held on 19.04.2018 in item no. 12 and prima facie rejectedthe application without considering other merits and demerits as per the decision of STA held on 14.06.2017; Departmental Item No. 2, which categorically demands the production of a stage carriage with age less than eight years at the time of consideration of fresh stage carriage application. Against the decision of RTA, the applicant has approached Hon. STAT and produced a Judgment in MVAA No. 180/2018 Dtd. 21.06.2018 and Hon. STAT has set aside the decision of RTA citing a number of directions from Hon. High Court that the production of a stage carriage is not mandatory for granting a regular stage carriage permit. Hon. STAT has further directed to grant fresh regular stage carriage permit sought by the appellant, if there is no other legal impediments. We have perused the directions contained in the aforesaid judgment of Hon. STAT; re- considered the application; verified reports and connected files. There were a number of objections raised on the application in the open hearing of this authority and those were considered as per law. We could not find any legal impediment in granting the above application for fresh stage carriage permit. Thus the regular permit on the proposed route

21 is granted to a suitable stage carriage subject to settlement of timings, on production of current records of a vehicle as specified in the decision of STA held on 14.06.2017 in Departmental item 2 within thirty days of communication of this decision as per Rule 159[2] of KMV Rules 1989; failing which the grant of the regular permit will be treated as revoked without further notice. Item No. 25 Heard. This is to consider the application for fresh S/C permit to operate on the route Kottakkal – Kottappuram – Thalakkappu – Muthalamad (via) Kottappadi, Kavathikkulam, Indianoor, Kottappuram, Thottappaya, Thalakkappu, Kooriad, Villoor, Arichola, Chankuvetti, AVS College Jn., Cholakkunde, Tharayittal, Puthanangadi, Mini Bazar, Puthupparamba, Chudalappara, Qurbani and Thokkampara as Ordinary Service as Ordinary Service. We have considered the application; verified reports and connected files. There were a number of objections raised on the application in the open hearing of this authority and those were considered as per law. As per the report of Motor Vehicle Inspector, there is no legal impediment to grant the permit. Thus the regular permit on the proposed route is granted to a suitable stage carriage subject to settlement of timings, on production of current records of a vehicle as specified in the decision of STA held on 14.06.2017 in Departmental item 2 within thirty days of communication of this decision as per Rule 159[2] of KMV Rules 1989; failing which the grant of the regular permit will be treated as revoked without further notice. Item No. 26 Heard. This is to consider the application for fresh S/C permit to operate on the route – Othayi – Kottakkal – Edavannappara (via) Pathanapuram, Pallippadi, Therattammal, Poovathikkal, Kavanur, Manjeri, Irumbuzhi, Malappuram, Ponmala, Othukkungal, Cherukunnu, Poomkudi Bridge as Ordinary Service. We have considered the application; verified reports and connected files. There were a number of objections raised on the application in the open hearing of this authority and those were considered as per law. As per the report of Motor Vehicle Inspector, total route length of the proposed route is 64.8 Kms. There is an overlapping of 3.2 Kms with the notified portion. 3.24 is the permissible limit. However as per the time schedule, the proposed stage carriage operation is from 5 a.m. to11.35 p.m., thus the service is operating around 18.5 hours without much break. Moreover we are of the view that late night trips to Edavannappara are merely to escape from the effect of notification. Intention of the applicant in this regard is really doubtful. Thus, the Secretary, RTA will conduct a detailed enquiry on this application and explain the feasibility of stage carriage operation with such a long duration with respect to passenger safety aspects and report.Also the applicant has to file an affidavit before this authority that

22 how he is going to operate this service in such a long duration with at least two sets of crew and also that he will operate the proposed late night trips to Edavannappara. Hence, decision on this application is adjourned. Item No. 27 Heard. This is to consider the application for fresh S/C permit to operate on the route Kavanoor Hospital – Mongam (via) Kavanoor, Palakkaparamba, Poochengal, Palottil, Thripanachi Schoolpadi touching Thripanachi Hospital Millumpadi, Kozhithai and M C Padi as Ordinary Service. We have considered the application; verified reports and connected files. There were a number of objections raised on the application in the open hearing of this authority and those were considered as per law. As per the report of Motor Vehicle Inspector, there is no legal impediment to grant the permit. Thus the regular permit on the proposed route is granted to a suitable stage carriage subject to settlement of timings, on production of current records of a vehicle as specified in the decision of STA held on 14.06.2017 in Departmental item 2 within thirty days of communication of this decision as per Rule 159[2] of KMV Rules 1989; failing which the grant of the regular permit will be treated as revoked without further notice. Item No.28 Heard. This is to consider the application for fresh S/C permit to operate on the route Kalikave- Areacode (via) Arimanal, Karuvarakkunde, Thuvvur, Kizhakke Pandikkad, Pandikkad, Nellikkuth, Kuttippara, Manjeri, Nellipparamba and Kavanur and last two single trips via. Melattur and touching Neelancherry two single trips via. Kuttathi and Arimanal as Ordinary Service We have considered the application; verified reports and connected files. There were a number of objections raised on the application in the open hearing of this authority and those were considered as per law. As per the report of Motor Vehicle Inspector, there is no legal impediment to grant the permit. Thus the regular permit on the proposed route is granted to a suitable stage carriage subject to settlement of timings, on production of current records of a vehicle as specified in the decision of STA held on 14.06.2017 in Departmental item 2 within thirty days of communication of this decision as per Rule 159[2] of KMV Rules 1989; failing which the grant of the regular permit will be treated as revoked without further notice. Item No.29 Heard. This is to consider the application for regular permit in respect of the Stage Carriage KL-15- 6969 for a period of five years on the route -Kalikav-Malappuram as OS from the

23

M.D. KSRTC. We have considered the application. Thus the regular permit on the proposed route is granted to a suitable stage carriage. Item No.30 Heard. This is a request for granting maximum time as per Rule 159 of Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 for producing current records for endorsing the granted permit on the route Kalikavu – Tirur – Thelppara as ordinary service by this Authority, held on 19.04.2018 in Item No. 2. We have verified the application and connected records. Application is allowed and maximum time as per KMVR 159 is granted to the applicant for the production of a suitable stage carriage as specified in the decision of STA held on 14.06.2017 in Departmental item 2, failing which the grant of the regular permit will be treated as revoked without further notice subject to the outcome of the writ petition filed before the Hon. High Court of Kerala. Item No. 31 Heard.This is to consider the request of Sister RTA, Kozhikkode held on 12.04.2018 in Item No. 2 seeking concurrence from this authority for considering an application for regular stage carriage permit on the route Areacode – Mukkam – Edavannappara – Kunnamangalam – Koodaranhi via. Eanhimavu, Pannikkode, Cheruvadi, Nairkuzhi, MVR Cancer Center, Palakkady, Vengeri Madam, NIT, Manasserry, Karamoola as Ordinary Service. We have considered the application; verified reports and connected files. As per the report of Motor Vehicle Inspector, there is no legal impediment in granting concurrence for portions overlapping with the jurisdiction of this authority.Thus concurrence is granted to the above mentioned application for fresh stage carriage permit. Item No.32 Heard. 1. This is to peruse the Judgment from the Hon‟ble High Court Of Kerala in WP(C) in No. 33320 of 2017 dtd 15.03.2018 with a direction to re-consider the application for variation of regular permit in respect of the stage Carriage KL 08 AS 7281 (replaced from KL 10 V 7736) operating on the route of Manjeri Tirur Via Irumbuzhi, Malappuram Kottakkal as ordinary service so as to provide additional trip Malappuram to Manjeri via Irumbuzhi as extention of the 7th single trip and return single trip from Manjeri to Malappuram touching Perimbalam by extending the route from Panayi to Perimbalam on the existing route without curtailment. 2. We have considered the application; verified reports and connected files. There were a number of objections raised on the application in the open hearing of this authority and those were considered as per law. 3. This application was already considered and rejected by this authority held on 21.05.2015 vide Item No. 72 in the light of the directions contained in Clause 19 of G.O. (P)

24 no. 42/2009/Trans; Dtd. 14.07.2009. This authority has stated that the requested variation is through notified portion and the right to operate any new service and to increase the trips in the notified routes or its portions will be reserved exclusively for the STUs. 4. against the decision of this authority the applicant approached Ho. STAT and produced a judgment in MVAA No. 206 of 2015 dtd 31.12.16. As per the direction from STAT, this authority re-considered the matter based on the revised enquiry report of Motor Vehicles Inspector and also after hearing affected parties including the representative of KSRTC. The enquiry report reveals that, the 7th single trip is operated from Uphill Malapuram through Malappuram-Manjeri road. In this trip there is no notified sector. But in the return single trip, the vehicle has to operate via Jubilee road (ie from Moonampadi junction to Uphill Malappuram through Palakkad-Kozhikode road) and overlaps with notified portion from Collector‟s bunglow jn to Malappuram town. 5. The application was re-considered by this authority held on 30.05.2017 in item no. 32 and rejected the application as per the directions contained in the notification G O (P) No. 8/2017/Tran Dtd. 23.03.2017. 6. Again, the applicant has produced another judgment from Hon. High Court of Kerala, in WP(C) No 33320 of 2017 dtd 15.03.2018; in which Hon. Court has directed to consider the application on an individual basis and in case there is no variation or extension is sought for on the notified routes, the same shall be taken up and considered in accordance with the provision of Section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. 7. This authority has considered the objections raised by the representative of KSRTC and other en-route operators in the open hearing. Major contention of these objectors is that the proposed variation overlaps with the notified sector and the same is objectionable. This authority has verified the reports of route enquiry officers and the same is ascertained in these reports that the one single trip is through the notified sector from Moonampadi junction to Uphill Malappuram through Palakkad-Kozhikode road. 8. Thus the objections raised were found sustainable. KSRTC clearly submits their objection to grant this variation through the proposed route and in this context, we could not find any reason to grant the application. In the aforesaid judgment of Hon. High Court, it was clearly pointed out that this aspect of notification has to be considered while re- considering this application. In this context, as per the provisions contained in G.O. (P) no. 42/2009/Trans; Dtd. 14.07.2009 and G O (P) No. 8/2017/Tran Dtd. 23.03.2017 the application for variation is rejected. Item No. 33 Heard. 1. This is to peruse the Judgment from Hon. High Court of Kerala in WP(C) No. 30161 of 2018 Dtd.15.03.2018 and to re-consider the application for variation of regular permit in respect of KL 55 9341 operating on the route Puthuponnani-Tanur as LSOS.

25

The variation applied to provide: a) extension from Kuttippuram to ThavanurKelappaji College of Agricultural Engg.& Technology via Mathirassery and Kadakassery; b) extension of last trip from Puthuponnani to Veliyamcode and c) curtailment from Ponnani to Puthuponnani on the existing regular route. 2. This application had been considered by this authority held on 21/11/2012 vide item no 20 and rejected the application stating that the proposed extension overlaps through the notified route from Kuttipuram to Mallur Shiva temple on a distance of 1.5 km and the variation will cause to increase number of trips through the notified portion. As per clause 19 of notification no. 42/2009/trans dtd 14.07.09 right to operate new service or to increase the no of trips through the notified route or its portion is reserved for State Transport undertaking only. The curtailment of trips to Puthuponnani will adversely affect the travelling public. 3. Against the decision of RTA, the applicant approached Hon. STAT and in its Judgment in MVAA No 129 of 2013 dtd 14.10.2014 Hon. STAT set aside the decision of this authority and appeal stands allowed in part. There was also a direction to this authority to consider afresh the requests: a) Extension of route from Puthupponnani to Veliyamkode and b) curtailment of trip from Ponnani to Puthupponnani in the light of the report of Motor Vehicle Inspector. 4. The applicatin was again placed before this authority held on 30.05.2017 vide additional item No 7 and further rejected as per G O (P) No. 8/2017/Tran Dtd. 23.03.2017. 5. The applicant has further approached Hon‟ble High Court of Kerala in WP(C) No 30161 of 2017 dtd 15.03.2018. In its judgment Hon. High Court directed this authority to further re- consider the request of the petitioner for variation or extensions on an individual basis and in case there is no variation or extension is sought for on the notified routes, the same shall be taken up and considered in accordance with the provision of section 80(30 of the motor vehicles Act 1988. 6. We have considered the application; verified reports and connected files. There were a number of objections raised on the application in the open hearing of this authority and those were considered as per law. 7. The main contention of the objectors is that the proposed variation passes through notified sector in the extension from Kuttippuram to Thavanur Kelappaji College of Agricultural Engg.& Technology via Mathirassery and Kadakassery. The same is found sustainable. Hon. STAT also observed and approved the same in its Judgment in MVAA No 129 of 2013 dtd 14.10.2014. Thus, the consideration of this authority is required only for points b) and c) mentioned in point 3. As per the direction of Hon. STAT and also as per the directions contained in the judgment of Hon. High Court in WP(C) No 30161 of 2017 dtd 15.03.2018 we have reviewed the above requests b) and c) in the light of the report of Motor

26

Vehicle Inspector. We could not find any legal impediment to allow the requests based on the recommendations of route enquiry officer. Hence, the application for variation of permit with respect to KL 55 9341 b) Extension of route from Puthupponnani to Veliyamkode and c) curtailment of trip from Ponnani to Puthupponnani aregranted as per the provisions of section 80(3) MVA subject to production of current records of the above said stage carriage within thirty days from the date of communication of the decision failing which the grant of this variation will be treated as revoked without further notice and subject to settlement of timings. However the request for a) extension from Kuttippuram to Thavanur Kelappaji College of Agricultural Engg.& Technology via Mathirassery and Kadakassery is rejected since the portion of the route overlaps with notified sector. Item No. 34 Heard. 1. This is to consider the application for variation of regular permit in respect of the stage Carriage KL 10 V 9957 operating on the route of Kanhiyur- Kunnamkulam as ordinary service. The permit holder applied for variation of permit for a) providing additional trip between Changaramkulam and Makkali (Via) Kanhiyoor, and Nasranikunnu, (2 Single trips), and b) extension from Edappal to Nariparamba Via Thattanpadi and polpakara (2 Single trips) c) with slight change in the existing time on the existing regular route without curtailment. 2. We have considered the application; verified reports and connected files. There were a number of objections raised on the application in the open hearing of this authority and those were considered as per law. Most of the objections were on the proposed changes in existing timings. This authority is of the view that the permit holder should not use this request of variation as a means of unnecessary change in time schedule. 3. We have verified the report of route enquiry officer and he has reported that due to variation there is no notified sector and hence clause 4 of the notification No. G.O (p) No.8/2017/Trans dtd 23.03.2017 is not violated. Variation of existing permit for providing extension from Edappal to Nariparamba and additional trip between Changaramkulam and Mukkali and time changes will be beneficial to the travelling public.No changes in halting place. Section 8(3) of MV act is not violated.New portion is originated from Edaappal to Nariparamba. There is no virgin portion or notified sector on the extended portion. 4. The objections found sustainable and not variation of existing timings is allowed. However points a) and b) in point no. 1 cited above are granted as per the provisions of section 80(3) MVAct based on the report of route enquiry officer subject to production of current records of the above said stage carriage within thirty days from the date of communication of the decision failing which the grant of this variation will be treated as

27 revoked without further notice and subject to settlement of timings only for the varied portion. No change in other existing timings allowed. Item No.35 Heard. 1. This is to consider the application for variation of regular permit in respect of the stage Carriage KL 52 K 4950 operating on the route of Palapetty-Edappal Chungam as ordinary service. The permit holder applied for variation of Permit so as to a) limit return trips from Puthanpally to Palapetty Via Eramangalam, (2 single trips) at Puthuponnani by re-arranging trips between Puthuponnani and Palapetty after existing halting time without curtailment of the existing route. 2. We have considered the application; verified reports and connected files. There were a number of objections raised on the application in the open hearing of this authority and those were considered as per law. Most of the objections were on the proposed changes in existing timings. This authority is of the view that the permit holder should not use this request of variation as a means of unnecessary change in time schedule. 3. We have verified the report of route enquiry officer and he has reported thatthere is no inclusion of new portion or exclusion of existing route. Clause 4 of the notification No.G.O.(P) No. 8/2017/Trans dtd 23.03.2017 is not violated. Re arrangement of trip will curtail the returning trips from Puthanpally to Palappetty in the day time which may affect travelling public from Puthuponnani to Palapetty. However rearranged trips on the above sector during night time will be beneficial to the night passengers between Puthanpally and Palapetty. Distance of variation is 7 Km only.Halting place is not originated. 4. The objections were considered and found sustainable. The applicant has proposed a time change and curtailed four single trips between Puthuponnani and Palappetty during day time. However he has included additional trips between Puthuponnani and Palappetty during night after 8.30 p.m. We are not satisfied with the recommendations of the route enquiry officer that the trips during night will be beneficial to the passengers. A detailed report with statistics is required to take a right approach in this application. Hence issue a memo to the route enquiry officer to explain how he has arrived in such a conclusion and place the detailed report before this authority. Decision on this application is adjourned. Item No. 36 Heard. 1. This is to peruse the Judgment in W.P.(C) No. 38465 of 2017 dated., 15.03.2018 and to re-consider the application for regular variation in respect of the vehicle KL 11 S 3033 (now replaced by KL 40 A 1927), operating on the route Kalikavu-Kadampuzha - Nilambur as ordinary service has applied for a) the extension of 3rd trip from Kottakkal to Changuvetti (1.5 km), without curtailment on the existing regular route.

28

2. The matter was enquired through the Motor Vehicle Inspector and was place before the RTA, Malappuram dated., 30.05.2017 as item no. 25 and rejected by this authority based on the directions contained in in notification G O (P) No. 8/2017/Tran Dtd. 23.03.2017. 3. Against this decision, the Permit holder approached the H‟ble High Court of Kerala, in W.P(C) No. 38465 of 2017 dated. 15.03.2018. Hon. High Court set aside the decision of this authority with a direction to consider the request of the petitioner on an individual basis and in case there is no variation or extension is sought for an the notified routes, the same shall be taken up and considered, in accordance with the provisions of Section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The respondent. State Transport Undertaking shall also be heard before orders are passed. The K.S.R.T.C, had filed Writ Appeal vide No. 1101/2018 and obtained an order by which status Quo passed for a period of one month with effect from 08.06.2018. 4. We have considered the application; verified reports and connected files. There were a number of objections raised on the application in the open hearing of this authority and those were considered as per law. Most of the objections states that the requested variation is through notified sector. However the Motor Vehicle Inspector has reported that the variation to Kottakkal to Chankuvetti will be beneficial to the passengers and there is no overlapping with any of the notified sectors. 5. However, upon verification of files, it was noted that KSRTC was not heard in this regard and the Secretary RTA has submitted that a WP(C) no. 1101 of 2018 is pending for disposal before Hon. High Court of Kerala. Hence, the decision on this application is adjourned with a direction to the Secretary; RTA to hear the representative of KSRTC and also to ascertain that there is no overlapping with notified sector in the proposed variation and submit a report before this authority. Item No. 37 Heard. 1.This is to peruse the Judgment in WP(C) No. 182 of 2018 dated. 15.03.2018 of the Hon. High Court of Kerala and hence to consider the application for regular variation in respect of the vehicle KL 10 Y 1176, operating on the route Wandur – Nilambur has applied for regular variation of conditions of permit so as to provide a) additional 2 single trips between and Nilambur Subrahmanyakshethram; b) two single trips between Wandoor and Karimbanthodi and c) two single trips between Wandoor and Karad without curtailment on the existing route. 2. The application was placed before this authority held on 24.10.2017 as item no. 17 and rejected the same as per the conditions stipulated in G O (P) No.8/2017/Tran Dtd. 23.03.2017.

29

3. Against this decision, the Permit holder approached the Hon. High Court of Kerala, in W.P(C) No. 182 of 2018 dated 15.03.2018. While disposing the Writ Petition, the Hon. Court set aside the impugned orders with a direction to consider the request of the petitioners on an individual basis and in case there is no variation or extension is sought for an the notified routes, the same shall be taken up and considered, in accordance with the provisions of Section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 4. We have considered the application; verified reports and connected files. There were a number of objections raised on the application in the open hearing of this authority and those were considered as per law. Two of the en-route operators have submitted that the variation is requested through Wandoor and Nilambur Subrahmanyaswami Kshethram; which is close to Nilambur Bus Stand. There is none of bus services are operating from that spot and the intention of the applicant is to escape from entering into Nilambur Bus Stand. We have verified the sketch submitted by the route enquiry officer and found that the bus stand is 700 Mts. away from Nilambur Subrahmanyaswamy Temple. In this context, we are of the view that this needs to be enquired further and another detailed enquiry is required to ascertain the genuineness of the application. The Secretary, RTA will conduct a detailed enquiry through the Joint Regional Transport Officer, Nilmabur and submit a detailed report before this authority. Hence decision on this application is adjourned. Item No. 38 Heard. 1. This is to peruse the Judgment in WP(C) No 1060 of 2018 dtd 05.04.2018 of the Hon.High Court of Kerala and hence to consider the application for regular variation in respect of the vehicle KL 09 N 8073 operating on the route of Areacode-Oodakayam- Manjeri-Mukkam. Application for regular variation of conditions of permit so as to provide additional trip between a) Areacode and Odakayam Via Pathanapuram Therattamal and Vettilapara(2 single trips) and b) re-arrangement of tips (time revision) on the existing regular route without curtailment. 2. The application was considered by this authority held on 24.10.2017 as item no. 18 and rejected the same based on the directions contained in the G O (P) No.8/2017/Tran Dtd. 23.03.2017. 3. Against this decision, the permit holder approached the H‟ble High Court of Kerala, in W.P.(C) No. 1060 of 2018 dated., 05.04.2018. Hon. High Court set aside the impugned order with a direction to consider the variation after verifying whether the variation is sought for any notified route, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Judgment. If the variation is not on any notified route, the same is liable to be considered in terms of Section 80(3) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

30

4. We have considered the application; verified reports and connected files. There were a number of objections raised on the application in the open hearing of this authority and those were considered as per law. Most of the objections from other en-route operators were on the intention of the applicant; for seeking an application for variation he has shuffled the entire time schedule. We have also verified the enquiry report of Motor Vehicle Inspector, Malappuram. He has also pointed out that the change in existing timings will affect traveling public. Upon verification of the application majority of existing timings were shuffled by the applicant. In this context, this authority feels that the objection is sustainable and the intention of the applicant is doubtful. In this context, this authority could not ascertain the need for variation as per Section 80 (3) of Motor Vehicles Act and hence application for variation is rejected. Item No. 39 Heard. 1.This is to peruse the Judgment in M.V.A.A. No. 281/2014, dated, 22.03.2018 of the Hon. STAT, Ernakulam and hence to consider the application for regular variation of service in respect of the stage carriage KL-56-9408 operating with the strength of Regular Permit, vide 10/628/2003, valid from 01.07.2016 to 30.06.2021 on the route Manjeri-Tirur (via)Anakkayam,Panayi,Irumbuzhi, Malappuram, Kottakkal,Edarikkode and Vylathur(touching Perithalmanna via Anakkayam and 4 singles) as Ordinary service for the curtailment of 2 single trips from the Manjeri- sector via Mankada and Thirurkad to avoid notified sector on the existing regular route without changing existing timings. 2. The application was considered by this authority held on 18.09.2014 as item no. 17 and rejected the same based on the directions contained in the G O (P) No.8/2017/Tran Dtd. 23.03.2017. 3. Against this decision, the Permit holder approached the Hon. STAT, Ernakulam, in M.V.A.A. No. 281/2014, dated. 22.03.2018. While disposing the Appeal Petition, the Hon. STAT, set aside the impugned Order with a direction to grant variation sought for by the appellant if there is no other legal impediments. 4. We have considered the application; verified reports and connected files. There were a number of objections raised on the application in the open hearing of this authority and those were considered as per law. Hence the application for regular variation is granted as per the provisions of section 80(3) MVA subject to production of current records of the above said stage carriage within thirty days from the date of communication of the decision failing which the grant of this variation will be treated as revoked without further notice and subject to settlement of timings.

31

Item No.40 Heard. This is to consider the application for regular variation in respect of the vehicle KL 13 AE 9294, operating on the route, Melattur-Kozhikkode has applied for regular variation of conditions of permit so as to curtail the trip from Areekode to Pannippara (2single trips).We have considered the application; verified reports and connected files. There were a number of objections raised on the application in the open hearing of this authority and those were considered as per law. Hence the application for regular variation is granted as per the provisions of section 80(3) MVA subject to production of current records of the above said stage carriage within thirty days from the date of communication of the decision failing which the grant of this variation will be treated as revoked without further notice and subject to settlement of timings. Item No. 41 Heard. This is to consider the application for variation of permit in respect of the Stage Carriage KL 10 U 1899 on the route Kollanchina - Kondotty. The permit holder applied for extension from Kollacmchina to Pukayur (6 single trips) without curtailment on the existing route. We have considered the application; verified reports and connected files. There were a number of objections raised on the application in the open hearing of this authority and those were considered as per law. Hence the application for regular variation is granted as per the provisions of section 80(3) MVA subject to production of current records of the above said stage carriage within thirty days from the date of communication of the decision failing which the grant of this variation will be treated as revoked without further notice and subject to settlement of timings. Item No. 42 Heard. 1. This is to peruse the judgment in WP(C) No.18604 of 2018 dated 06/06/2018 from Honorable High court of Kerala and also to re-consider the application for variation of permit in respect of the Stage Carriage KL 56 N 9606 (old vehicle number KL 10 T 727) operating on the route Puthuparamba-Kottapuram. The permit holder applied for a) regular extension from Puthuparamba to Puthanangadi via Karattangadi,Manjamad Palam and Mini Bazar as OS on the existing regular route. 2. This application was placed before the RTA held on 25/01/2017 and 19/04/2018 and rejected. Now the permit holder has produced a judgment which directs the RTA to consider the issue in the light of judgment in WP(C) No 4188 of 18 and connected cases, and to consider whether the variation sought for is on any notified route or not. 3. We have considered the application; verified reports and connected files. There were a number of objections raised on the application in the open hearing of this authority and those were considered as per law. This authority has also verified the submission given by

32 the applicant; objections other that of timings were overruled. Hence the application for regular variation is granted as per the provisions of section 80(3) MVA subject to production of current records of the above said stage carriage within thirty days from the date of communication of the decision failing which the grant of this variation will be treated as revoked without further notice and subject to settlement of timings. Item No. 43 Heard. 1. This is to consider the application for variation of permit in respect of the Stage Carriage KL 10 X 8892 operating on the route Valancherry – Tirur as ordinary service. The permit holder has applied for providing: a) one additional single trip from Tirur to Puthanathani, via vairankode; b) one single trip from Puthanathani to Thirunavaya via Pattarnadakkvu and c) one single trip from Thirunavaya to Tirur via, Pattararnadakkavu and Vairankode without curtailment on the existing regular route. 2. We have considered the application; verified reports and connected files. There were a number of objections raised on the application in the open hearing of this authority and those were considered as per law. There are objections from en-route operators that the portion in which variation is sought passes through notified sector. In that case this is a clear violation of the conditions stipulated in G O (P) No.8/2017/Tran Dtd. 23.03.2017. However rom the report of MVI, it is not clear that the extension sought for is through the notified portion or not. 3. Further, as per the proposed timings the stage carriage operation will start from 3.30 in the morning and till 9.33 in the night. The stage carriage is operating service for about 18 hours daily. 4. Hence we are of the opinion that a revised enquiry is required to ascertain whether there is any objectionable overlapping or not in the proposed variation and also, the Secretary, RTA will conduct a detailed enquiry on this application and explain the feasibility of stage carriage operation with such a long duration with respect to passenger safety aspects and report. Again, the applicant has to file an affidavit before this authority that how he is going to operate this service in such a long duration with at least two sets of crew. Hence decision on this application is adjourned. Item No. 44 Heard. This is to consider the application for variation of permit in respect of the Stage Carriage KL 10 AJ 3795 operating on the route Indianoor – Vengara as ordinary service. The permit holder applied to extend the 6th single trip from Indianoor to Kottappuram and to deviate 7thsingle trip from Kottappuram to Kottakkal via Nayarpadi, PoovilBhgavathiTemple, Thalakkappu, Kooriad, Villoor, and Arichol instead of existing 7th single trip from Indianoor to Kottakkal on the existing regular route.

33

We have considered the application; verified reports and connected files. There were a few objections raised on the application in the open hearing of this authority and those were considered as per law. Hence the application for regular variation is granted as per the provisions of section 80(3) MVA subject to production of current records of the above said stage carriage within thirty days from the date of communication of the decision failing which the grant of this variation will be treated as revoked without further notice and subject to settlement of timings. Item No. 45 Heard. This is to consider the application for variation of permit in respect of the Stage Carriage KL 05 P 8136 (old no KL 37 2880) operating service on the route Valancherry – Tirur as ordinary service. The permit holder applied for extension from Moodal to Kadampuzha via Karthala Chungam, Ambalaparambu, Kanhippura, MalayilKadampuzha Police station (2 single trips ) by curtailment of Moodal to Valanchery ( 2 single trips ) on the existing route. We have considered the application; verified reports and connected files. There were a few objections raised on the application in the open hearing of this authority and those were considered as per law. As per the report of Motor Vehicle Inspector, a) the applicant has shuffled the existing timings. Also, b) the proposed extension crosses national highway17 at Kanhippura, which is a notified route. c) There is a curtailment from Moodal to Valancherry (4 Kms) However, the report could not establish the effect of the above mentioned points and thus this authority could not take a right approach in this application. The report of the route enquiry officer has to clearly explain which are the shuffled timings and how it affects the travelling public. Also, he has to explain whether the crossing of nationalized portion in the proposed route is against the provisions stipulated in G.O. (P) 8/2017/Trans.or not. Similarly, the officer could not establish effect of curtailment from Moodal to Valacherry. Thus we are of the view that a revised and specific enquiry report is needed to take a right approach in this application. The Secretary, RTA will conduct another enquiry and place this application with a detailed report before this authority. Hence, decision on this application is adjourned. Item No. 46 Heard. This is to peruse the judgment of Hon‟ble High Court of Kerala vide WP(C) No.12091/2018 Dtd 22/05/2018 to take up, consider and pass order on the request submitted with respect to the stage carriage KL 10 AF 909 to endorse the variation of permit granted in the RTA meeting of 26-10-2007 vide item No.10 on the route Kolakuth – Feroke railway station via Idimoozhikkal, Ramanattukara and Chungam as ordinary service.

34

We have perused the Judgment of Hon. High Court of Kerala; considered the application; verified reports and connected files. This is an application considered and granted by this authority way back in the year 2007. The application for variation of a permit condition was for extension from Kolakuth to Muthiraparamba (8 trips) without curtailment and without changing existing timings. The Regional Transport Authority has considered the application and granted the same with a rider that all trips of this permit has to touch Muthiraparamba. The permit holder has taken up the case before Hon. STAT and filed an appeal to remove the rider. However Hon. STAT in MVAA 291/2008 dismissed the appeal of the permit holder by upholding the decision of this authority. Now the applicant has placed a request to endorse the decision before this authority and Hon. High Court of Kerala also directed to take up and consider the application. 1. Previously, RTA has directed the applicant to operate all the trips to Muthiramaramba however even now the applicant has proposed only 8 single trips to Muthirapparamba. 2. This authority has granted the request for variation in such a view that such a view that the variation will serve the convenience of the public. However the applicant has totally neglected this aspect and he has intentionally missed the opportunity to serve the public by not providing public transport facility for such a long time. He has not even communicated to this authority that why he has not taken up the decision for these many years. Thus, we are doubtful on the genuineness of the applicant. 3. Rule 159 (2) clearly stipulates that the applicant shall produce the current records of the vehicle within one month of the sanctioning of the application and however it should not exceed four months in aggregate for the production of the records of the vehicle for endorsing the permit. Rules further states that “In the event of any applicant failing to produce the certificate of registration within the stipulated period the authority may revoke its sanction of the application.” In this case, the applicant has requested to endorse a variation after 11 years of its sanction. The conditions of the route will definitely being changed in such a long duration and even the need for variation has to be re-verified and/ or re-assessed. This authority could not find any reason to Condon the intentional laxity of the applicant to produce the current certificates of the vehicle. Thus, the previous decision on this application is revoked and rejected the application to endorse the variation. Item No. 47 Heard. 1. This is to peruse the Judgment of Hon. High Court of Kerala in WP(C)No.40149 of 2017 dtd 28-05-2018 for re-considering the application for variation of regular permit in respect of the stage carriage KL 10 AD 7675 on the route. The application was previously considered and rejected by the RTA held on 21-05-2015 and 31-08-2017. 2. The stage carriage KL-10-AD-7675 is operating on the route Kottakkal-Malappuram as ordinary service. The permit holder has applied for variation of permit so as to

35

a) deviate 4 single trips via Cherukunnu instead of via Atteeri on the Kottakkal- Othukkungal sector; b) curtailment of Kottakkal –Mattathur 2 single trips and c) change of halting place from Kottakkal to Chungam vyavasaya kendram by d) extending the route from Panakkad to Chungam Vyavasaya kendram via Karathode on the existing route . 3. The application was previously considered and rejected by this authority held on 21-05- 2015 vide item no.71 stating that curtailment of Kottakkal –Mattathur will adversely affect the public. Against the decision, the applicant has filed appeal before Hon. STAT and Hon. STAT has directed to reconsider the variation application in part. 4. Further, the matter was placed before the RTA held on 31-08-2017 vide item no.36 and the application was further rejected as per the conditions stipulated in G O (P) No.8/2017/Tran Dtd. 23.03.2017. The applicant has filed a writ appeal before Hon. High Court of Kerala and Hon. High Court in WP(C) No.40149 of 2017 dtd 28-05-2018 has directed this authority to take up, reconsider and pass orders on the variation application with notice to KSRTC and to consider whether the variation sought for is on any notified route or not. In case the variation sought for does not cover the notified route, the variation has to be considered in accordance with section 80(3) of the KMV Act, 1988 with in a period of two months. 5. We have considered the application; verified reports and connected files. Perused the directions contained in the Judgment of Hon. High Court of Kerala in WP(C) No.40149 of 2017 dtd 28-05-2018. As per the direction of Hon. STAT the application has considered in part by excluding the requested curtailment as per the provisions contained in Section 80 of Motor Vehicles Act. This authority has verified the report of route enquiry officer to ascertain the genuineness of the application u/s 80 (3) of Motor Vehicles Act. The applicant has also requested to change of halting place from Kottakkal to Chungam Vyavasaya Kendram. We are of the opinion that this is against the provisions of the act and also against the interest of travelling public. In this context we could not grant the permit as requested by the applicant. Hence the application for variation is rejected. Item No.48 Heard. 1. This is to peruse the judgment of Hon. STAT in MVAA No.65/2018 dtd 30-06-2018 to re consider the application for variation of permit in respect of the Stage Carriage KL 10 AV 6997 operating on the route Kannathumpara - Mukkam. 2. The applicant has requested for a variation of existing permit to a) provide 4 additional cut single trips between Edavannapara and Cheruvadi; b) 2 additional trips between Edavannappara and Mukkam and c) time revision without curtailment on the existing route.

36

3. The application was place before the RTA held on 10-01-2018 vide item 30 and the application was rejected in the light of the directions contained in G O (P) No.8/2017/Tran Dtd. 23.03.2017. 4. The applicant has filed a writ petition before Hon. STAT and in MVAA No. 65/2018; Dtd.30.06.2018 Hon. STAT has directed this authority to re-consider the application since the variation sought for is not through any of the notified portion or scheme. 5. The application was re-considered by this authority afresh and also verified connected files and documents. Perused the directions contained in the Judgment. Upon verification of time schedule it is noted that all most all the timings are shuffled and/or changed. This is not acceptable. We strongly oppose unnecessary change in issued timings. This is against the interest of the public and also this will leads to unhealthy competition on the road. 6. The Secretary RTA, in consultation with the applicant shall arrive at a proposal without changing the existing timings and place before this authority for re-consideration. Hence the decision on this application is adjourned. Item No.49 Heard. This is to consider the application for renewal of Stage Carriage permit (10/533/93) valid up to 15.08.2018 in respect of Stage Carriage KL 51 G 3027 operating on the route of Kozhikode-Palakkad as LSOS.We have considered the application; verified reports and connected files. The permit renewal application received from the above applicant on 28.05.2018. Portion of the route lies in the jurisdiction of Sister RTAs Palakkad and Kozhikode. The matter enquired through MVI Malappuram and he has reported that the overlapping with notified routes /approved schemes are not objectionable as per GO(p) No.8/17 dated 23.03.2017 clause 4 and 5 (b) in the case of renewal of an existing permit. There was an objection filed by one Mr. Nazar, House, Thrikkannapuram, Malappuram stating that the applicant has accepted ten lakhs rupees from him under the guise of selling the vehicle. However, this objection was not sustainable in considering the application for renewal of permit and hence overruled as per law. The renewal application of the permit is grantedsubject to clearance of Government dues and NOC from the financier, if applicable. Item No.50 Heard. This is to consider the application for renewal of Stage Carriage permit (10/531/98) valid up to 28.05.2018 in respect of Stage Carriage KL 10 AF 4171(hire agreement replacement from KL 08 AQ 5099) operating on the route of Kozhikode-Palakkad as LSOS. The stage carriage KL 10 AF 4171(hire agreement replacement from KL 08 AQ 5099) covered by a regular permit (10/531/98) valid up to 28.05.2018 operating on the above inter district route. The permit renewal application received from the above applicant on

37

04.05.2018. Portion of the route lies in the jurisdiction of Sister RTAs Palakkad and Kozhikode. The matter was enquired through MVI Malappuram and he has reported that the overlapping with notified routes/approved schemes are not objectionable as per G.O.(p) No.8/17 dated 23.03.2017 clause 4 and 5 (b) in the case of renewal of an existing permit.However, the vehicle produced for renewal is on hire agreement, which is obviously not in the name of the applicant. We have also referred the following Judgment of Kerala High Court Bhaskaran v/s RTA Alleppey – 10.12.2002 in which Hon. High Court has made following observations: “The transport authority which grants the permit is authorised to cancel the permit or suspend it under Section 86(c) if the holder of the permit ceases to own the vehicle covered by the permit. Rule 176 refers to entry of new address in the permit. Upon receipt of intimation about the change of address the transport authority is obliged after due enquiries to record the changed address in the Certificate of Registration and enter the permit in the new address. These two requirements conclusively indicate that the permit has to be in respect of the vehicle which stands registered obviously in the name of the registered owner. Over and above that, Section 2(30) defines an owner in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered. As had been suggested by the respondent in the case cited, the definition was sufficient to change the existing situation. It is undisputed that in the matter of dues towards fee and taxes there is a charge on the vehicle and when a permit holder has no ownership over the vehicle, such provisions automatically gets defeated. Under Rule 159, entry of registration marks in the permit is compulsory. It is laid down that when the applicant is unable to produce the Certificate of Registration on the date of his application for permit the applicant shall within one month of the sanctioning of the application or other extended time should produce the Certificate of Registration, so that the registration marks may be entered in the permit. The rule uses the expression "duly registered" and this can be accepted as "duly registered in the name of the permit holder". Of course being a movable item, it may ordinarily be possible to assume that ownership goes with possession. But as far as the motor vehicle is concerned, especially taking note of the public interest involved, it is not only the possession that matters. Elaborate procedure has been prescribed, touching a variety of requirements, in the matter of transfer of ownership and permits. The predominant purpose, as I find it, is public interest. Thus in the case of a vehicle covered by hire purchase in the matter of registration, grant of permit and renewal of the same, the Act and Rules impose conditions for making available No Objection Certificate. This is to ensure that during the grant of permit, if the vehicle is taken back by the legal owner, it will adversely affect public interest. Likewise the lessor, as in the present case, can repossess the vehicle at his will and pleasure so long as he is the registered owner of the

38 vehicle. The cancellation, referred to in Section 86(c) has come to be in the statute book, in the aforesaid context. Therefore, the contention of the respondent that the lease arrangement entitle him to have a permit in respect of the vehicle held on the strength of lease is difficult to be accepted.”(Bhaskaran v/s RTA Alleppey 2003 (1) KLT 106:2003(1) KLJ163). Thus, this authority is of the view that a vehicle produced with a lease agreement and in the name of another person cannot be considered for endorsing a permit and/or renewal of permit. Hence application for renewal is rejected. Item No.51 Heard. This is to consider the application for renewal of Stage Carriage permit (10/546/97) valid up to 23.12.2017 in respect of Stage Carriage KL 54 J 694 operating on the route of Thrissur-Kozhikode Via Kunnamkulam Edappal Kuttipuram Changuvetty without touching Kottakkal Kolapuram Ramanattukara and Feroke NB as LSOS. The matter enquired through MVI Malappuram and he has reported that the overlapping with notified routes /approved schemes are not objectionable as per GO(P) No.8/17 dated 23.03.2017 clause 4 and 5 (b) in the case of renewal of an existing permit. The renewal application of the permit is grantedsubject to clearance of Government dues and NOC from the financier, if applicable. Item No.52 Heard. This is to consider the application for renewal of Stage Carriage permit (10/834/98) valid up to 20.05.2018 in respect of Stage Carriage KL 51 F 7700 operating on the route Palakkad-Kozhikode Via Olavakode Mannarkkad Araimpavu Perinthalmanna Ramapuram Malappuram Pookkottu Kondotty Ramanattukara and Feroke NB as LS OS. The matter enquired through MVI Malappuram and he has reported that the overlapping with notified routes /approved schemes are not objectionable as per GO(P) No.8/17 dated 23.03.2017 clause 4 and 5 (b) in the case of renewal of an existing permit. The renewal application of the permit is grantedsubject to clearance of Government dues and NOC from the financier, if applicable. Item No.53 Heard. This is to consider the application for renewal of Stage Carriage permit (10/8330/98) valid up to 20.05.2018 in respect of Stage Carriage KL 51 F 9300 operating on the route of Palakkad-Kozhikode Via Olavakode Mannarkkad Araimpavu Perinthalmanna Ramapuram Malappuram Pookkottu Kondotty Ramanattukara and Feroke NB as LSOS. The matter enquired through MVI Malappuram and he has reported that the overlapping with notified routes /approved schemes are not objectionable as per GO(P) No.8/17 dated 23.03.2017 clause 4 and 5 (b) in the case of renewal of an existing permit.

39

The renewal application of the permit is grantedsubject to clearance of Government dues and NOC from the financier, if applicable. Item No.54 Heard. This is to re-consider the application for renewal of Stage Carriage permit (10/582/95) valid up to 01.09.2015 in respect of Stage Carriage KL 8 BB 1599 operating on the route of Thrissur Kozhikode Via Kunnamkulam Changaramkulam Edappal, Kuttipuram, Valanchery Kakkad Unicersity, and Feroke NB as LS OS. The matter enquired through MVI Malappuram and he has reported that the overlapping with notified routes /approved schemes are not objectionable as per GO(P) No.8/17 dated 23.03.2017 clause 4 and 5 (b) in the case of renewal of an existing permit. The renewal application of the permit is grantedsubject to clearance of Government dues and NOC from the financier, if applicable. Item No.55 Heard. This is to consider the belated application for renewal of stage carriage permit (10/1484/20136) valid upto 10.03.2018 in respect of stage carriage KL 10 S 2217 on the route of Pookkottumpadam-Manjeri Via Kalikav, , Puthanezhi touching Chalava Via Myladi Moonadi Anjilangadi Pullikuth Melattur Ucharakadav as ordinary service. The Stage Carriage KL 10 S 2217 covered by a regular permit valid up to 10.03.2018 (10/1484/2013) operating on the above inter district route. The permit renewal application received from the above applicant on 02.03.2018.Permit holder has not submitted a medical certificate for condone the delay. Delay in submitting the application for renewal of stage carriage permit is condoned. The renewal application of the permit is grantedsubject to clearance of Government dues and NOC from the financier, if applicable. Item No.56 Heard. This is to consider the application for renewal of inter district permit in respect of the stage carriage, KL 59 1224, operating on the route, Chalikkal-Palakkad-Vazhikkadavu Via Pothukallu, Uppada, Nilambur, Wandur, Pandikkad,Melattur, Kottopadam, Mannarghat, Mundur And Olavakode And Vazhikadavu Via Edakkara As LSOS vide Permit No. 10/638/1998/M, which is valid to 07.10.2018. The Permit holder applied for the renewal of Permit for further Period of 05 years on 03.04.2018, to operate on the Route, which was in time. Since, a portion of the route lies under the jurisdiction of R.T.A, Palakkad, route enquiry report was obtained from M.V.I. Malappuram, which reveals that route length under the Jurisdiction of RTA Palakkad is 58 kms.

40

The renewal application of the permit is grantedsubject to clearance of Government dues and NOC from the financier, if applicable. Item No.57 Heard. This is to consider the application for renewal of inter-district permit in respect of the stage carriage, KL 58 E 1530, operating on the route, Vazhikkadavu- Kozhikkode- Via Nilambur- Areacode- Mukkam- Rec- Kunnamangalam and Karathur, vide Permit No. 10/631/2006/M, which is valid to 22.12.2017. The Permit holder applied for the renewal of Permit for further Period of 05 years on 04.11.2017, to operate on the Route, which was in time. Since, a portion of the route lies under the jurisdiction of R.T.A, Kozhikode, route enquiry report was obtained from RTO, Kozhikode, which reveals that route length under the Jurisdiction of RTA Kozhikode is 37.70 kms. The renewal application of the permit is grantedsubject to clearance of Government dues and NOC from the financier, if applicable. Item No.58 Heard. This is to consider the application for renewal of Inter District Permit in respect of the stage carriage, KL 51 A 7384, operating on the route, Nilambur-Kozhikode Via Edavanna, Areacode, Eranhimavu, Pannikkode, Koolimad, and Medical College, as O.S, vide Permit No. 10/648/2002/M, which is valid 17.12.2017. . The Permit holder applied for the renewal of Permit for further Period of 05 years on 24.08.2017, to operate on the Route, which was in time. Since, a portion of the route lies under the jurisdiction of R.T.A, Kozhikode, route enquiry report was obtained from RTO, Kozhikode, which reveals that route length under the Jurisdiction of RTA Kozhikode is 31.50 kms. The vehicle is now operating with the strength of Temperoary Permit issued which is valid from 19.04.2018 to 18.08.2018. The renewal application of the permit is grantedsubject to clearance of Government dues and NOC from the financier, if applicable. Item No.59 Heard. This is to consider the application for renewal of inter-district permit in respect of the stage carriage, KL 11 Y 1089, operating on the route, Kondotty- Kozhikkode- on the existing Regular route vide Permit No. 10/626/1998/M, which is valid to 23.05.2018. The Permit holder applied for the renewal of Permit for further Period of 05 years on 25.01.2018, to operate on the Route, which was in time. Since, a portion of the route lies under the jurisdiction of R.T.A, Kozhikode, route enquiry report was obtained from RTO, Kozhikode, which reveals that route length under the Jurisdiction of RTA Kozhikode is 45.0

41 kms. The vehicle is now operating with the strength of Temperoary Permit issued which is valid from 24.05.2013 to 23.05.2018. The renewal application of the permit is grantedsubject to clearance of Government dues and NOC from the financier, if applicable. Item No.60 Heard. This is to consider the belated application for renewal of permit in respect of the stage carriage KL 10 S 639 operating on the route, Arimbra- Ferook vide permit No. 10/658/2004/M, which was valid to 22.03.2018. The stage carriage KL 10 S 639, is covered by regular permit which is valid from 23.03.2013 to 22.03.2018. The permit holder applied for the renewal of the permit on 09.04.2018 for a further period of 05 years. The application was not in time. He has requested to condone the delay occurred in submitting the renewal application in time. Route length lying under the jurisdiction of R.T.A, Kozhikode is 6.5 kms. The vehicle is under continuous Form G from 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2019. The delay condoned. The renewal application of the permit is grantedsubject to clearance of Government dues and NOC from the financier, if applicable. Item No.61 Heard. This is to consider the belated renewal of permit application submitted by the permit holder of the stage carriage KL 53 D 8572 on 05/06/2018 on the route Valancherry – Perinthalmanna as ordinary service. The permit No 10/515/2003 was expired on 21/03/2018.The renewal application was submitted on 05/06/2018. It has delayed by 75 days and he has produced the medical certificate issued by Asst. Surgeon. Delay condoned. The renewal application of the permit is grantedsubject to realization of a compounding fee of Rs. 5000/-; clearance of Government dues and NOC from the financier, if applicable. Item No.62 Heard. This is to consider the belated renewal of permit application submitted by the permit holder of the stage carriage KL 58 D 5857 on 27/06/2018 on the route Pothannur – Kottakkal. The permit No 10/549/1998 was expired on 30/06/2018. The renewal application was submitted only on 27/06/2018. The renewal application of the permit is grantedsubject to clearance of Government dues and NOC from the financier, if applicable.

Item No.63

42

Heard. This is to consider the application for the belated renewal of permit in respect of the vehicle KL 10 N 1591 operating on the route Thunjanparamba – Kuttippuram with the Strength of Regular Permit vide No. 10/842/1998 valid from 04/07/2013 to 03/07/2018. The permit was expired on 03.07.2018. The applicant has submitted the application for renewal on 16.06.2018 which is in time. However the application was submitted to renew the permit to his stage carriage KL 10 N 1591 and the registration validity of the said stage carriage was invalid from 10.03.2017. Thus, the application for renewal was submitted without a valid vehicle. We have also referred the directions contained in the Judgment of Hon. High Court of Kerala in WP (C) No. 24250 of 2015 Dtd. 07.09.2015. By interpreting Rule 172 (2), Hon. Court has observed that „No application for renewal of permit would lie without the registration mark of the vehicle to be covered by the permit‟. In this case, at the time of submission of application for renewal the vehicle produced was invalid and hence the very application for renewal submitted by the applicant is not maintainable as per the verdict of Hon. High Court of Kerala mentioned above. Hence application for renewal of permit is rejected. Item No.64 Heard. This is to consider the renewal of permit application submitted by the permit holder of the stage carriage KL 55 E 2462 on 30/01/2014 on the route Thrissur – Kozhikkode as LSOS The permit No 10/8250/1994 was expired on 20/06/2014. Motor Vehicle Inspector, Malappuram has conducted an enquiry on this application and he has reported that overlapping with notified routes / approved schemes are not objectionable as per GO.(p) NO8/2017 Trans dtd 23/03/2017 clause 4 and 5 b in the case of renewal of an existing permit. Thus, the renewal application of the permit is grantedsubject to clearance of Government dues and NOC from the financier, if applicable. Item No.65 Heard. This is to consider the application for renewal of the inter district permit of stage carriage KL 10 AV 6003 permit No.10/626/2000 valid up to 26-10-2018 on the inter district route Marutha-Palakkad as LSOS. Motor Vehicle Inspector, Malappuram has conducted an enquiry on this application and he has reported that overlapping with notified routes / approved schemes are not objectionable as per GO.(p) NO8/2017 Trans dtd 23/03/2017 clause 4 and 5 b in the case of renewal of an existing permit. Thus, the renewal application of the permit is grantedsubject to clearance of Government dues and NOC from the financier, if applicable.

43

Item No.66 This is to consider the belated renewal of permit application submitted by the R/O of the S/C KL 10 AV 826 on 28 -04-2018 to operate on the route Kondotty - Vengara as ordinary service. The Permit -No.10/15/2003 was valid up to 03-02-2018. Renewal application was submitted only on 28-04-2018. Applicant attached a medical certificate and a delay condone letter along with the renewal application. Delay condoned. The renewal application of the permit is grantedsubject to realization of a compounding fee of Rs. 5000/-; clearance of Government dues and NOC from the financier, if applicable. Item No.67 Heard. This is to consider the application for variation of permit as LSOS and to re consider the application for renewal of permit which was adjourned by RTA held on 12.11.2014 vide item No. 27 in respect of the stage carriage KL-08 BE 4499 operating on the route Kozhikode Thrissur as LSOS (previously LSFP). As per GO(MS)No.45/2015 dtd 20/08/2015, the RTAs will issue ordinary limited stop service permits to those stage carriages which had been operated as higher class service such as Fast Passenger and Superfast and the permits of which were subsequently rejected by the RTA. The matter was enquired through MVI Malappuram and he had reported that the total distance of the route lies in Thrissur district is 35 Km and in Kozhikode district is only 16 Km. And also reported that overlapping with notified routes /approved schemes are not objectionable as per GO(P) No 8/2017 Trans dtd 23.03.2017 clause 4 and 5 (b) in the case of renewal of existing permit. Thus, the renewal application of the permit is granted as LSOS subject to clearance of Government dues and NOC from the financier, if applicable. Item No.68 Heard. This is to re-consider the application for renewal and regular variation of permit as LSOS which was adjourned by RTA 25.01.2017 vide item No 62 in respect of the stage carriage KL-48 D 645 operating on the route Kozhikde-Thrissur-Tirur as Superfast. As per GO(MS)No.45/2015 dtd 20/08/2015, the RTAs will issue ordinary limited stop service permits to those stage carriages which had been operated as higher class service such as Fast Passenger and Superfast and the permits of which were subsequently rejected by the RTA. The matter was enquired through MVI Malappuram and he had reported that the total distance of the route lies in Thrissur district is 35 Km and in Kozhikode district is only 16 Km and total distance of the route is 139.1 KM. He has also reported that overlapping with

44 notified routes /approved schemes are not objectionable as per GO(P) No 8/2017 Trans dtd 23.03.2017 clause 4 and 5 (b) in the case of renewal of existing permit. Thus, the renewal application of the permit is granted as LSOS subject to clearance of Government dues and NOC from the financier, if applicable. Item No.69 Heard. This is to peruse the Judgment from Hon. STAT in MVAA No 208/2018 dtd 06.07.2018 and to reconsider the belated application for replacement of permit in respect of the stage carriage KL 10 Q 648 operating on the route Manjeri- Manjeri circular as ordinary service vide permit no 10/184/2001 which is valid from 22.11.2016 to 21.11.2021, to the later model Stage Carriage KL 42 D 6992 since the life of the route bus expired on 28.02.2018. Belated application for replacement of permit was already rejected by the RTA held on 19.04.2018 in additional item no. 4. The Judgment from Hon. STAT was perused. In view of the directions contained in the judgment application for replacement is re-considered and allowed as per law. Item No.70 Heard. This is to consider belated application for replacement of permit in respect of stage carriage KL 10 Q 3358 vide permit no. 10/6400/1996/M, which was valid from 17.12.2011 to 16.12.2016 on the route Vazhikadavu - Kozhikkode as ordinary service. The permit holder applied for renewal of permit and this authority held on 31.08.2017 in item no. 45 granted the application for renewal of permit. However the permit holder could not produce the current records of the stage carriage till 17.04.2018 due to tax arrears. However all pending dues were cleared by the permit holder as on 17.04.2018. Meanwhile the validity of registration of the stage carriage KL 10 Q 3358 expired on 23.03.2018. Now the permit holder applied for replacement of permit to a later model stage carriage KL 57 2214. We have considered the application; verified connected files and records. The renewal of permit was granted to the stage carriage KL 10 Q 3358. However the applicant could not produce the current records to endorse the granted renewal of permit in time. The vehicle was in form G and thus the delay is condoned. Now the stage carriage attained 15 years and now the renewal of permit cannot be endorsed to the said stage carriage. In this context, the only option available is to replace the vehicle with a later model stage carriage and endorse the renewal of permit granted by this authority. Thus, in order to have a continued operation of permit this authority allowed the replacement of the permit to the new vehicle KL 57 2214.

Item No.71

45

Heard. This is to peruse the Judgment from Hon. High Court of Kerala in W.P.(C) No. 17562 of 2018, dated., 30.05.2018 and hence to consider the belated application for replacement of permit in respect of the stage carriage KL 10 Q 259, kept under suspended animation, operating on the route Kozhikkode-Kalikavu as LSOS with permit no.10/635/19984/M, which was valid from13.08.2013 to 12.08.2018 to the later model stage carriage KL 11 AH 3434. The directions contained in the judgment of Hon. High Court were perused. Way back in 2014, clearance certificate was issued to the stage carriage KL 10 Q 259 as per the request of the permit holder and also as per the directions contained in WP(C) No. 32348 of 2014(P), dated 03.12.2014. In the aforesaid judgment, Hon. Court has also directed the permit holder to replace the permit with a suitable vehicle within four months failing which the same shall be revoked. Now, after four years the permit holder has produced a vehicle for replacing the freezed permit and also placed an application for renewal of permit for further five years. This authority has considered the application and verified connected files in details in view of the directions contained in the Judgment of Hon. High Court of Kerala. There was clear direction from Hon. High Court to the permit holder to produce another vehicle for replacement within four months Now the permit holder has applied for replacement after about four years. This authority is of the opinion that the applicant has intentionally missed the opportunity for replacement his permit and this is against the provisions of KMVR 152. In the light of the above findings and observations, this authority is of the view that there is no necessity to condone the delay due to the intentional negligence and laxity of the applicant to operate a stage carriage. Hence this authority rejected the application for replacement. Item No.72 Heard. This is to consider the belated application for replacement of permit in respect of the stage carriage, KL 10 Q 2940 operating on the route Nellikuth-Thannikkadavu- Nambooripotty as ordinary service vide permit No.10/6005/2007, which is valid from 06.12.2017 to 05.12.2022 to a later model stage carriage KL 17 B 7191 since the life of the route bus expired. The permit is valid till 2022 and hence replacement is allowed as per law. Item No.73 Heard. 1. This is to peruse the Judgment in W.P.(C) No. 11839 of 2018, dated 05.04.2018 and hence to consider the belated application for renewal and replacement of permit by way of lease agreement in respect of the stage carriage KL 03 H 2077 operating on the route, Kondotty- Vengara as ordinary service vide permit no. 10/652/2002/M, which was valid

46 from 26.12.2012 to 25.12.2017 to a later model Stage Carriage, KL 65 J 3215 since the life of the route bus expired. 2. The stage carriage KL 03 H 2077 was originally registered as on 30.10.2002 and as per the present condition, its registration validity expired as a stage carriage on 29.10.2017. This stage carriage was covered by regular permit valid from 26.12.2012 to 25.12.2017 vide permit no. 10/652/2002/M. The permit holder applied for renewal of permit for a further period of five years on 11.12.2017. There is no valid stage carriage offered at the time of submitting the application for the renewal of Permit. 3. Later, the permit holder has submitted an application for replacement of the above lapsed permit to a later model stage carriage KL 65 J 3215 by way oflease agreement on 22.03.2018. 4. Meanwhile, The permit holder has approached Hon. High Court of Kerala in W.P.(C.) No. 11839 of 2018 dated 05.04.2018. While disposing the writ petition, Hon. High Court has directed the Secretary RTA, Malappuram to take up, consider and pass orders on the application for the renewal of permit within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The application for replacement will be considered within a period of one month thereafter. The model of the vehicle and the fact that it is a leased vehicle will not stand in way of the consideration of the application for renewal as directed above. 5. Again the permit holderhas approached Hon. High Court of Kerala in W.P.(C). No. 16483 of 2018 dated 22.05.2018 for the purpose of obtaining temporary permit in respect of the stage carriage KL 65 J 3215 in place of the above lapsed permit. Thus, temporary permit was issued to the stage carriage, KL 65 J 3215 in place of the above lapsed permit from 12.07.2018 to 31.07.2018. 6. As directed by Hon. High Court, this authority has considered the application for renewal of permit as per law. We have also verified the application and connected documents in detail. It is noted that the permit holder has applied for renewal of permit on 11.12.2017 and there is no valid stage carriage offered at the time of submitting the application for endorsing the renewed stage carriage permit. We have also referred the directions contained in the Judgment of Hon. High Court of Kerala in WP (C) No. 24250 of 2015 Dtd. 07.09.2015. By interpreting Rule 172 (2), Hon. Court has observed that „No application for renewal of permit would lie without the registration mark of the vehicle to be covered by the permit‟. In this case, at the time of submission of application for renewal the vehicle produced was invalid and hence the very application for renewal submitted by the applicant is not maintainable as per the verdict of Hon. High Court of Kerala mentioned above. Hence application for renewal of permit is rejected. Subsequently the application for replacement is also considered and rejected as per law.

47

Item No.74 Heard.This is to consider 1. Belated application for replacement of permitin respect of the stage carriage, KL 58 4055, operating on the route, Karulai - Manjeri Old Bus stand as ordinary service valid from 14.02.2014 to 13.02.2019 which was kept under suspended animation, to the stage carriage KL 05 R 509 2. Transfer of permit on death of the permit holder- in respect of the stage carriage, KL 58 4055which was kept under suspended animation to the name of Sri. Chandradas S/o K. Karuppan, Karoth House, Thrikkalangode P.O., Karakunnu, Manjeri, the second legal heir of the deceased permit holder. In the open hearing of this authority, the learned counsel for the applicant has requested to adjourn the item. This authority allowed the request of the applicant; decision on this application is adjourned. The Secretary, RTA will place this application in the next sitting of this authority. Item No.75 Heard. This is to peruse the Judgment in M.V.A.A. No. 206/2018 dated 06.07.2018 and hence to consider the belated application for replacement of permit in respect of the stage carriage KL 10 N 7481 operating on the route Kondotty – Thirur as ordinary service valid from 07.02.2016 to 06.02.2021 to a later model stage carriage KL 17 E 4373 since the life of route bus expired. This authority perused the directions contained in the judgment of Hon. STAT in M.V.A.A. No. 206/2018 dated 06.07.2018 and considered the application for replacement afresh in the light of directions contained in the judgment of Hon. High Court of Kerala in Ayisha vs. RTA Kasargode and other 2006 (3) KLT 1013. Since the permit is valid and current, application for replacement is allowed as per law. Item No.76 Heard. This is to consider application for replacement with respect to the stage carriage KL 10 Q 6589 operating on the route Kottackal - Kuttippuram with the strength of regularpermit vide 10/810/2002 valid from 09/04/2017 to 08/04/2022. The vehicle attained fifteen years on 13.05. 2018. The application for replacement was submitted on 31.05.2018. We have considered the application for replacement in the light of directions contained in the judgment of Hon. High Court of Kerala in Ayisha vs. RTA Kasargode and other 2006 (3) KLT 1013. Since the permit is valid and current, application for replacement is allowed as per law. Item No.77 Heard.This is to consider the replacement application of the stage carriage KL 10 Q 9151 conducting service on the route Edappal - Tirur as ordinary service with the strength of

48 regular permit vide 10/81/2001 valid from 06/01/2016 to 05/01/2021. The applicant has produced the records of the vehicle KL 23 F 2232 for replacing the aforesaid permit. We have considered the application for replacement in the light of directions contained in the judgment of Hon. High Court of Kerala in Ayisha vs. RTA Kasargode and other 2006 (3) KLT 1013. Since the permit is valid and current, application for replacement is allowed as per law. Item No.78 Heard.This is to consider the replacement application of the stage carriage KL 10 Q 3116 conducting service on the route Vettamcheerppu - Purathur-KoottaiAzhimugham-Tirur as ordinary service with the Strength of Regular Permit vide 10/409/2018 valid from 25/01/2018 to 24/01/2023. On 26/06/2018 the permit holder submitted an application for replacement to a later model stage carriage KL 54 B 6461. We have considered the application for replacement in the light of directions contained in the judgment of Hon. High Court of Kerala in Ayisha vs. RTA Kasargode and other 2006 (3) KLT 1013. Since the permit is valid and current, application for replacement is allowed as per law. Item No.79 Heard. 1. This is to peruse the judgment from the Hon. High Court of Kerala in WP(C) No.19715 of 2018 dated 20/06/2018; 2. to consider the renewal of permit application submitted by the permit holder of the stage carriage KL 10 X 3660 on the route Venniyur – Kozhikkode; permit no. 10/808/2005 expired on 01/03/2015 and also 3. to consider the replacement application of the stage carriage KL 10 X 3660 by KL 09 V 03 with respect to the regular stage carriage permit no. 10/808/2005 expired on 01/03/2015 and which is under suspended animation from 28.09.2013. 4. On 01/06/2018 permit holder has submitted an application to replace the permit to a later model vehicle KL 09 V 0003 and also submitted an application for renewal of permit. 5. Previously, The Permit holder approached Hon. High Court of Kerala in W.P. (C.) No. 21306 of 2013 for obtaining the Clearance Certificate in respect of the Stage Carriage KL 10 X 3660 without surrendering the above regular permit. Hon. High Court directed to issue clearance certificate keeping the permit under suspended animation. Accordingly, Clearance Certificate issued to the Stage Carriage on 28.09.2013 keeping the permit under the suspended animation subjected to the condition that the permit shall be replaced within a period of four months from the date of issue of the Clearance Certificate. 6. The Permit Holder has not submitted application for the replacement of the above suspended animation permit in time. Meanwhile, the Regular Permit expired on 01.03.2015. Now, the applicant has submitted applications for the renewal of regular permit and replacement of the above expired suspended animation permit as on

49

01.06.2018, stating that he has acquired a stage Carriage bearing registration mark as KL 09 V 0003. 7. This authority elaborately considered the application and connected files in detail. While, issuing the clearance certificate by keeping the live permit under suspended animation, this authority has made it clear that the permit should be replaced within four months from the date of issue of clearance certificate. The applicant has never tried to replace the live permit within the stipulated time period. This clearly shows the laxity and negligence of the permit holder to operate a stage carriage permit. Thus, we could not find any need to condone the delay occurred from the part of the permit holder to produce a vehicle for replacement. 8. In this context, this authority has also referred the observations made by Hon. High Court in a similar case in WP (C) No. 24250 of 2015 Dtd. 07.09.2015. By interpreting Rule 172 (2), Hon. Court has observed that „No application for renewal of permit would lie without the registration mark of the vehicle to be covered by the permit‟. Hence even the very application for renewal submitted by the applicant is not maintainable at present. The validity of the regular permit attached to the stage carriage was expired on 01.03.2015 and the applicant is ceased to be a holder of a regular permit thereafter. Even the application for renewal was submitted after 3 years. 9. Thus the applicant has intentionally missed the opportunity for renewing his permit. In the light of the above findings and observations, this authority is of the view that there is no necessity to condone the intentional negligence and laxity of the applicant to operate a stage carriage this is against the provisions of KMVR 152. Hence this authority rejected the application for renewal and replacement. Item No.80 Heard.This is to consider the replacement application of the stage carriage KL 10 P 6248 conducting service on the route Vettamcheerp – Tirur – Murivazhakkal with the Strength of regular permit vide 10/832/1997 valid from 13/10/2017 to12/10/2022. On 24.07.2018 the permit holder submitted an application for replacement to a later model stage carriage KL 55 Y 4809 since the registration validity of previous vehicle expired. We have considered the application for replacement in the light of directions contained in the judgment of Hon. High Court of Kerala in Ayisha vs. RTA Kasargode and other 2006 (3) KLT 1013. Since the permit is valid and current, application for replacement is allowed as per law. Item No.81 Heard.This is to peruse the judgment of Hon. STAT in MVAA No.178/2018 dtd. 21-06-2018 and also to consider the application for replacement of stage carriage permit from KL 10 M 7944 to KL 10 Y 527operating on the route Edavannapara - Mavoor touching Puthiyedathparamba and Vilayil. The registration validity of the outgoing vehicle expired on 08.01.2017 .Regular permit No.10/115/2004 valid up to 18-07-2019. On 08/03/2018, the

50 permit holder submitted an application to replace the expired vehicle to his own later model stage carriage KL 10 Y 527. This matter was placed before the RTA held on 19-04-2018 vide item no.54 and rejected the same. Against this decision, the applicant filed appeal in Hon. STATvide MVAA No.178/2018. In the judgment of 21-06-2018, Hon. STAT set aside the decision of RTA and directed to consider the application for replacement afresh in accordance with law We have considered the application for replacement in the light of directions contained in the judgment of Hon. High Court of Kerala in Ayisha vs. RTA Kasargod and other 2006 (3) KLT 1013. Since the permit is valid and current, application for replacement is allowed as per law. Item No.82 Heard.This is to peruse the judgment of Hon. STAT vide MVAA No.189/2018 dtd. 05-07- 2018 and to consider the application for replacement of regular stage carriage permit from KL 10 M 7261 to KL 11 S 4527 on the route Calicut University - Tirur. Regular permit vide No.10/4495/2016 is valid up to 21-09-2021. Registration validity of the outgoing vehicle expired on 28-11-2017 on attainment of 15 years from the date of registration. On 08/03/2018, the permit holder submitted an application to replace the expired vehicle to his own later model stage carriage KL 11 S 4527. This matter was placed before the RTA meeting of 19-04-2018 vide item no.53 and rejected the same. Against this decision, the applicant filed appeal in Hon. STAT videMVAA No.189/2018 dtd. 05-07-2018. In the judgment, Hon. STAT set aside the decision of RTA and directed to consider the application for replacement afresh in accordance with law We have considered the application for replacement in the light of directions contained in the judgment of Hon. High Court of Kerala in Ayisha vs. RTA Kasargod and other 2006 (3) KLT 1013. Since the permit is valid and current, application for replacement is allowed as per law. Item No.83 This is to peruse the Judgment from the Hon‟ble High Court of Kerala in WP(C) No. 17367 of 2018 dtd. 29.05.2018 and also to consider the application received from the permit holder for issue of clearance certificate in respect of the stage carriage KL 07 CF 5238 detaching it from the permit on the route Ernakulam-Guruvayoor- Kozhikode as LS OS without insisting for permit-less certificate. The directions contained in the aforesaid judgment fron Hon. High Court were perused. The stage carriage is now operating with temporary permit u/s 87(1) d up to 22.08.2018. Regular permit (10/5270/93) in respect of the above stage carriage LSFP expired on 18.07.2013 and the application for renewal of permit is pending consideration. Now, the holder of expired permit requested for issuance of clearance certificate without insisting for surrender of the existing regular permit. It is also learnt from connected files that the validity of regular permit is already expired and the renewal application is under

51 process of this authority. Hence we are of the opinion that the very application for withdrawal of vehicle from the permit is not maintainable. Also, in a Judgment of Hon. High Court of Kerala in WA Nos. 2486, 2455 and 2769 of 2015; Dtd. 06.04.2016 clearly pointed out that issuance of clearance certificate by keeping the permit alive is contrary to the object and purpose of the 1988 Motor Vehicles Act and the 1989 KMV Rules. In this context, the application for issuance of permit less/clearance certificate to the stage carriage KL 07 CF 5238 by keeping the permit alive is considered and rejected. Item No.84 This is to peruse the Judgment from the Hon. High Court of Kerala in WP(C) No. 16870 of 2018 dtd 28.05.2018 and to consider the request from the permit holder for issue of clearance certificate in respect of the stage carriage KL 54 E 2642 detaching it from the permit on the route Thrissur-Kozhikode as LSOS without insisting for permit-less certificate. The directions contained in the aforesaid judgment fron Hon. High Court were perused. The stage carriage is operating with temporary permit u/s 87(1) d up to 02.11.2018. Regular permit (10/8250/94) in respect of the above stage carriage as LSFP is already expired and the application for renewal of permit is in process. Now, the holder of expired permit requested for issuance of clearance certificate without insisting for surrender of the existing regular permit. It is also learnt from connected files that the validity of regular permit is already expired and the renewal application is under process of this authority. Hence we are of the opinion that the very application for withdrawal of vehicle from the permit is not maintainable. Also, in a Judgment of Hon. High Court of Kerala in WA Nos. 2486, 2455 and 2769 of 2015; Dtd. 06.04.2016 clearly pointed out that issuance of clearance certificate by keeping the permit alive is contrary to the object and purpose of the 1988 Motor Vehicles Act and the 1989 KMV Rules. In this context, the application for issuance of permit less/clearance certificate to the stage carriage KL 54 E 2642 by keeping the permit alive is considered and rejected. Item No.85 This is to peruse 1. Various complaints against the Stage Carriage KL 45 E 5566, operating on the route, Nilambur - Chettiyangadi -Perinthalmanna as LSOS, with the strength of Regular Permit valid from 16.06.2015 to 15.06.2020 vide Permit No. 10/656/1995. 2. Submission furnished by S.I. of Police, Nilambur dated., 21.11.2016. 3. The enquiry report furnished by the Joint Regional Transport Officer, Nilambur, dated 05.01.2017 and 21.04.2018. 4. Check reports dated 29.06.2017, 19.04.2018, 25.01.2018, and 20.03.2018. 5. We have examined the aforesaid complaints and various reports submitted by the enquiry officers. Also heard the complainant and the learned counsel for the permit holder.

52

6. The Stage Carriage, KL 45 E 5566 is covered by regular permit, vide 10/656/1995, valid from 16.06.2015 to 15.06.2020. The Stage Carriage is issued with a set of settled timings issued vide Order No. C6/31517/99/M, dated., 09.12.1999. 7. A complaint received against the service of the Stage Carriage alleging that the Vehicle is curtailing trips. Hence, direction was issued to the Joint Regional Transport Officer, Nilambur to watch the service of the Stage Carriage and submit report. Consequently the vehicle was checked on 29.06.2017, 19.04.2018, 25.01.2018 and 20.03.2018. Meanwhile, The Joint Regional Transport Officer, Nilambur has forwarded a series of complaints against the service stage Carriage, received and forwarded by the S.I. of Police, Kalikavu, as detailed below: i) Sri. Anil, Conductor of the Stage Carriage, KL 13 S 8699, dated 06.10.2017 regarding the time violation. ii) George Joseph, ASI(G) 2960, of Kalikavu Police Station regarding trip curtailment and disobedience of rules. iii) Sri. Mohammed Saheer, Sub. Engineer in Charge, Electrical Section, Kalaikav regarding the rash driving. iv) Sri. Yousafali, Chokkad regarding the curtailment of trips. In these circumstances, a detailed report was called for from the Joint Regional Transport Officer, Nilambur. Accordingly, he has submitted the same after watching the service of the stage carriage, KL 45 E 5566. As per the report a) thevehicle was curtailing the portion from Kalikavu to Pookkottumpadam on the last trip and halting at Kalikavu at 8.20 pm instead of Pookkottumpadam at 8.35 pm. b) Also it was reported that the vehicle was starting the trip from Kalikavu at 6.00 am instead of Pookkottumpadam at 5.50am. Thus the complaintswere found genuine. Frequent warnings were given to the crew of the Stage Carriage by M.V.Is and A.M.V.Is. itwas further reported that the service was run without curtailment for a few days and the curtailment was continued again. This frequent curtailment has been continuing for the past 08 months. Check reports have been prepared for this vehicle for trip curtailment. 8. It is reported that the Stage Carriage is still curtailing the trips on the portion Kalikavu- Pookkottumpadam Travelling Public of Pookkottumpadamare suffering very much due to this curtailment of first and last trips. The learned counsel appeared on behalf of the permit holder submitted that they will continue the operation of stage carriage without any curtailment in future. However, this authority has viewed this matter with due seriousness. The permit holder has to understand that primarily the very purpose of issuing a stage carriage permit is for the benefit of travelling public. As a stage carriage operator he should conduct service as per the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and Rules.

53

As a primary step, this authority has directed the permit holder to pay an amount of Rs. 40,000/-(10,000 per check report dated 29.06.2017, 19.04.2018, 25.01.2018 and 20.03.2018). The permit holder has to pay the same within ten days of receipt of this decision or the Secretary RTA will suspend the permit attached to the stage carriage for two months on behalf of this authority; issue proceedings and report. The Secretary RTA, with his agency will closely monitor the service of the stage carriage KL 45 E 5566 and report violation of law if any. Item No.86 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Item No.87 Applicant absent.Adjourned. Item No.88 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Item No.89 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Item No.90 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Item No.91 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Item No.92 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Item No.93 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Item No.94 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Item No.95 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Item No.96 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any.

54

Item No.97 Heard the learned counsel.Considered the objection submitted by one Mr. P. Nazer, Pulikkal House, Thrikkannapuram, Malappuram as per law and overruled. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the renewal of permit; production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Item No.98 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed (by death) subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Item No.99 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Item No.100 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Item No.101 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Item No.102 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Item No.103 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Item No.104 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Item No.105 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Item No.106 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Item No.107 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Item No.108 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any.

55

Item No.109 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Item No.110 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Item No.111 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Item No.112 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Item No.113 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Item No.114 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Item No.115 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Item No.116 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Item No.117 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Item No.118 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Item No.119 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Item No.120 Applicant absent.Adjourned. Item No.121 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any.

56

Item No.122 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Item No.123 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Item No.124 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Item No.125 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Item No.126 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Item No.127 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Item No.128 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Item No.129 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Item No.130 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Item No.131 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Item No.132 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Item No.133 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Item No.134 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any.

57

Item No.135 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Item No.136 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Item No.137 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Item No.138 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Item No.139 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Item No.140 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Item No.141 This is a complaint has been received from the Chairman (Consumer Protection Wing), Kerala Janavedi State Committee, Chemmad, on the traffic congestion in Tirurangadi Town in connection with functioning of two unauthorized bus stops situated in opposite sides of road near to Oriental Higher Secondary School, Tirurangadi and also the request is further to abolish the unauthorized bus stops existing in and around Tirurangadi. Motor Vehicle Inspector, Sub-RT Office, Tirurangadi has reported that the complaint is genuine and these bus stops has to be relocated in consultation with PWD and respective local self govt. institution to avoid further traffic congestion at Tirurangadi. We have verified the complaint and also the enquiry report submitted by the reporting officer. There is a direction to construct a bus bay and bus stop in a suitable place jointly decided by the Public Works Department and the respective local self-government institution in consultation with Motor Vehicles Department. Item No.142 This is to issue preliminary sanction for constructing a bus stand at Chemmad Town as per the decision of Municipal Council no. 3 (1); Dtd. 29.11.2017. The matter was enquired by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Tirurangadi and verified the remarks submitted. The objections raised were also considered. We are of the opinion that a detailed report in this regard is necessary to take a right approach in this application. Secretary, Tirurangadi Municipality is directed to facilitate the formation of a sub-committee including

58 representatives from Public Works Department (Roads); Revenue Department; Police Department and Motor Vehicles Department and submit a feasibility report before this authority for further approval. NOC for the proposed land from revenue authorities and suitability of the location for a bus stand has also to be produced. Item No.143 This to clarify the decision taken by RTA, Malappuram held on 10.01.2018 in Item No. 97 on introducing GPS facility in ambulances operating in Malppuram District. Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram held on 10.01.2018 in Item No. 97 has taken a decision on introducing GPS facility in all ambulances operating in . The matter was discussed in the technical committee of Angles International Foundation held on 03.03.2018 and further placed a request for a clarification on the decision taken by this authority especially on the cost aspect on the GPS device to be fixed in ambulances. We have examined the matter in detail. The decision was taken to implement GPS facility as a measure for quick response on causalities. A control room will be functioning from the Disaster Management Unit located in Malappuram Collectorate and the cost of the device has to be bear by the respective ambulance owner. Departmental Item: 1 - D3 Circular This is to peruse the decision of State Transport Authority held on 21.04.2018 on the implementation of D3 circular issued under D3/875/STA/2005 by STA Kerala. Perused the revised circular of STA. We are of the view that the decision of STA has to be implemented. Departmental Item – 2 Ratified. Additional Item No.1 Heard. 1. This is to peruse the Judgment from Hon. STAT in MVAA No. 260/2017 Dtd. 19.07.2018 and also to re-consider the application for regular stage carriage permit to operate on the route Chunkam Vyavasaya Office-Muttippalam-Perimbalam-Kottakkal (via) Karathode, Panakkad, Pattarkadavu, Malappuram, Vadakkemanna, Urdu Nagar, Munduparamba, Irumbuzhi, Panayi, Ponmala, Manoor, Othukkungal, Cherukunnu, Othukkungal Govt. High School with Chunkam Vyavasaya Office- Vengara 2 single trips via. Venkolam and return via. Karimbil – Halt at Chunkam Vyavasaya Office as Ordinary Service. 2. This authority has considered the application held on 31.03.2017 and rejected the application since there are only namesake trips are proposed to ill-served areas and also as per the direction of Hon. High Court of Kerala in WP(C) No. 20511 of 2017 Dtd. 28.06.2017. 3. Against the decision of RTA, the applicant has filed an appeal before Hon. STAT and in MVAA No. 260/2017; Dtd. 19.07.2018, Hon. STAT has directed this authority to reconsider the modified application submitted by the applicant. The applicant has modified the application in such a way that two more single trips are included to ill-served area Chunkam Vyavasaya Office.

59

4. Thus the regular permit on the proposed modified route is granted to a suitable stage carriage subject to settlement of timings, on production of current records of a vehicle as specified in the decision of STA held on 14.06.2017 in Departmental item 2 within thirty days of communication of this decision as per Rule 159[2] of KMV Rules 1989; failing which the grant of the regular permit will be treated as revoked without further notice. Additional Item No.2 Heard.This is to consider the application for regular Stage Carriage permit to operate on the route Kuttippuram – Ponnani – Tirur – Theyyala – Kottayi Azhimugham (via) Kuttippuram, Mini Pampa, New Heigh way, Ayankalam Jn., Nariparamba Thandalam Road, Pothanur Road, Chammravattam Junction, Uroob Nagar, Chanthappadi and Ponnani Kodathippadi and Chembi, Thirunavaya, Codackal, Karathur, B P Angadi, Tirur and Poongottukulam, Paravanna and Koottayi and Mangalam, Alathiyur, Thurupangode touching Kainikkara via. Musiliyarangadi and Hanumankavu and Chembi, Oorathupalliyali, Parithi, Kattilangadi, Kurumbathur, Bavappadi, Thuvvakkad, Elikkattiriparamba, Ezhur, Tirur, Payyanangadi, Chembra and Pandimuttam – Halt at Koottayi Azhimugham as Ordinary Service. We have considered the application; verified connected files and records. As per the proposed timing schedule, the stage carriage starts its operation at 3.40 in the morning till 11.50 in the night. The stage carriage is operating around 15 hours every day. Surprisingly, the route enquiry officer has verified the time schedule and recommended the same for consideration. However, the Secretary, RTA will conduct a detailed enquiry on this application and explain the feasibility of stage carriage operation with such a long duration with respect to passenger safety aspects and report. Also the applicant has to file an affidavit before this authority that how he is going to operate this service in such a long duration with at least two sets of crew. Hence decision on this application is adjourned. Additional Item No.3 Heard.This is to consider the application for regular Stage Carriage permit to operate on the route Kumbidi – Edappal (touching Kolalamba four single trips; Changaramkulam two single trips) and halt at Muthoor Palli (via) Anakkara, Chekanur Madrassa, Chekanur, Muthoor Palli and Annakkampad, touching Kolalamba via. Naduvattam and Pookarathara and touching Changaramkulam via Kalachal and return single trip from Changaramkulam via.Kakkadippuram as Ordinary Service. This authority has considered the application, verified connected files and documents. As per the report of Motor Vehicle Inspector, a small portion of the route (1.1 Kms) from Annakkampad to Muthur Palli is having only minimum width of 3.5 Mts for single line traffic. Hence stage carriage with minimum wheel base is only applicable in this route. This authority is of the view that we cannot impose such a restriction while granting the permit. The remark of the enquiry officer is not suffice to take a right approach on this application and the matter needs to be enquired further to know that whether the road is fit

60 for stage carriage operation or not. Thus we are of the opinion that a revised road fitness certificate, with clear indication on whether the portion of the road is fit for stage carriage or not, has to be called for from a competent officer, not below the rank of an Executive Engineer, PWD (R) for the virgin portion mentioned above. Hence the decision on this application is adjourned. Additional Item No.4 This is to 1. To peruse the Judgment from Hon. STAT in MVAA No. 232/2018 Dtd. 16.08.2018 2. To re-consider the modified application for fresh S/C permit to operate on the route Areekode-Adakkakundu (via) Pannippara, Edavanna, Thiruvali, Wandoor, Vaniyambalam, Anchachavadi, Kalikavu and Chenkode as ordinary service. 3. Initially the applicant has submitted a proposal for fresh stage carriage permit on the route Kozhikkode Palayam Stand – Adakkakunde as LSOS and the same was considered by the RTA held on 29.09.2015 in Item no. 22 and the decision was adjourned for want of Concurrence from Sister RTA Kozhikkode as Ordinary service. 4. The applicant has further submitted a request for changing the requested class of permit as Ordinary Service and grant the permit subject to counter signature from Sister RTA, Kozhikkode. The application was further placed before the RTA held on 11.07.2016; in Item No. 4 and the decision on the application was further adjourned with a direction to add more number of trips to ill-served route Adakkakunde and then to obtain concurrence from Sister RTA, Kozhikkode. 5. The applicant has placed a modified proposal by avoiding portions in Kozhikkode District and modified the route as Areekode – Adakkakunde. 6. The matter was considered by the RTA held on 19.04.2018 in Item No. 1 and and prima facie rejectedthe application without considering other merits and demerits as per the decision of STA held on 14.06.2017; Departmental Item No. 2, which categorically demands the production of a stage carriage with age less than eight years at the time of consideration of fresh stage carriage application. 6. Against the decision of RTA, the applicant has approached Hon. STAT and produced a Judgment in MVAA No. 232/2018 Dtd. 16.08.2018. Hon. STAT has set aside the decision of RTA citing a number of directions from Hon. High Court that the production of a stage carriage is not mandatory for granting a regular stage carriage permit. Hon. STAT has further directed to grant fresh regular stage carriage permit sought by the appellant, if there is no other legal impediments. 7. Thus, the regular permit on the proposed modified route is granted to a suitable stage carriage subject to settlement of timings, on production of current records of a vehicle as specified in the decision of STA held on 14.06.2017 in Departmental item 2 within thirty days of communication of this decision as per Rule 159[2] of KMV Rules 1989; failing which the grant of the regular permit will be treated as revoked without further notice.

61

Additional Item No.5 Heard.This is to place a request for granting further two more months beyond maximum time as per Rule 159 of Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 for accepting the current records of brand new stage carriage no. KL 55 Y 7529 for endorsing the granted permit on the route Tirur – Kuttippuram – Koottayi Azhimugham by the Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram held on 10.01.2018 in Item No. 18 We have considered the application and verified connected files in detail. This authority has granted a fresh stage carriage permit on the route Tirur – Kuttippuram – Koottayi Azhimugham in its sitting on 10.01.2018 in Item No. 18 subject to the production of current records of the stage carriage with temporary registration KL 10 U TEMP 3141 within 30 days of communication of the decision of RTA. The decision was communicated to the applicant on 03.03.2018. On 13.03.2018, the applicant has submitted a request for granting maximum time as per Rule 159 of Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 for producing current records of brand new vehicle bearing chassis no. MAT513102H7J14503 for endorsing the granted permit on the above route by the Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram held on 10.01.2018 in Item No. 18. The matter was considered by the RTA held on 19.04.2018 in Item no. 15 and maximum time as per Rule 159 of KMVR was allowed to the grantee of the permit. However, the grantee of the permit placed another request for allowing four more months beyond maximum time for the production of stage carriage. Now on 05.09.2018, he has submitted the current records of stage carriage KL 55 Y 7529 for endorsing the granted permit. However as per Rule 159 of Kerala Motor Vehicles Rule 1989 maximum time that can be allowed for the production of current records is up to four months. In this case, the time expired on 02. 07. 2018. Thus, we are of the view that this authority has no mandate for sanctioning a period exceeding four months. Thus the application for allowing more time to produce the current records is rejected. Additional Item No.6 Heard.This is to peruse the Judgment in MVAA No. 196/18 dtd 07.07.2018 and to re- consider the belated application for replacement of vehicle of the stage carriage in respect of KL 09 M 4717 with regular permit in respect of stage carriage KL 37 A 1303 (10/68/2000) valid up to 27.01.2020 on the route of Valanchery-Malappuram, touching Kadampuzha and halt at South Pang as OS which has been under suspended animation as per the Judgment of Hon. High Court of Kerala in WP(C)No. 27304 of 2015 dtd 15.9.2015 w e f 27.11.2015 which was rejected by RTA which held on 19.4.18 vide item No. 51. This authority considered the application and connected records in detail. On 09.02.2018 permit holder has submitted application for replacement of the stage carriage permit in respect of KL 37 A 1303(Yr of Mnfr is 2010 and seating capacity is 23) with a lesser model stage carriage KL 09 M 4717 (Yr of Mnfr is 2003 and seating capacity is 28). Both vehicles are owned by same person. The application for replacement of vehicle was considered and

62 rejected by RTA which held on 19.04.2018 vides item No. 51 as per the provisions contained in KMVR 152. On 19.07.2018, Permit holder submitted a Judgment from the Hon‟ble STAT in M.V.A.A. No 196/18 with a direction to reconsider the application for replacement filed by the appellant afresh. Replacement application filed by the applicant is considered afresh and allowed as per law subject to the inspection report of an officer not below the rank of Motor Vehicle Inspector on the condition of the stage carriage KL 09 M 4717. Additional Item No.7 Heard.This is to consider the belated application for replacement of vehicle of the stage carriage in respect of KL 54 K 7009 with regular permit in respect of stage carriage KL 10 R 2005 (10/56/99) valid up to 09.02.2019 on the route of Ponnai-Tirur as ordinary service since the registration validity of the stage carriage expired on 30.07.2018. Since the validity of the permit is up to 09.02.2019, application for replacement is allowed as per law. Additional Item No.8 Heard.This is to consider the replacement application of the stage carriage KL 10 Q 8224 conducting service on the route Valanchery – Kadampuzha Temple with the strength of regular permit vide 10/8123/2001 valid from 22/12/2016 to 21/12/2021. The date of registration of vehicle as a stage carriage expired on 15.07.2018. On 03/08/2018, the permit holder submitted an application to replace the existing vehicle with later model stage carriage KL 55 Y 4227 after the expiry of the registration validity of the vehicle. This authority has considered the application and since the regular permit is live and valid the application for replacement is allowed as per law. Additional Item No.9 Heard.This is to peruse the judgment from Hon. High Court of Kerala in W.P.(C) No 27982 of 2018 dated 17/08/2018 and also to consider the replacement application of the stage carriage KL 65 C 1572 conducting service on the route Kodumudi - Koottayi with the strength of regular permit vide 10/834/2003 valid from 27/01/2015 to 26/01/2020. The directions contained in the Judgment were considered; which directs to the secretary RTA to consider and pass appropriate order on application for replacement made by the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law. This authority has referred the provisions contained in Rule 174 (2) b of Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules 1989. Thus the application for replacement is rejected as per KMVR 174 (2) since the material difference is more than 25 percent.

Additional Item No.10 Heard.

63

1. This is to peruse the judgment from the Hon. STAT Ernakulam in M.V.A.A No 22/2018 dated 31/07/2018; 2.To consider the application for the transfer of the stage carriage permit in respect of the vehicle KL 10 N 1591 operating on the route Thunchanparamba – Kuttippuram with the Strength of regular permit vide no. 10/842/1998 valid from 04/07/2013 to 03/07/2018 and 3. To consider the replacement application KL 10 N 1591 with later model stage carriage KL 55 V 7036. Directions contained in the Judgment of Hon. STAT were considered. These applications were rejected by the RTA held 24/10/2017 vide item no 58. Against the decision of RTA, the applicant approached Hon. STAT and in MVAA No. 22/2018 dtd. 31.07.2018 directs the Regional Transport Authority to reconsider the application afresh. This authority has considered the applications and verified the files and reports in this regard. There is an application for renewal of permit for the above said stage carriage was already considered by this authority and rejected in this sitting in item no. 63. Since the application for renewal is rejected, the above applications for transfer and replacement of permits were not maintainable and rejected. Additional Item No.11 Heard.This is to consider the replacement application of the stage carriage KL 10 R 564 conducting service on the route Tirur – Chaliyam as ordinary service with the strength of regularpermit vide 10/811/2000 valid from 23/02/2015 to 22/02/2020 and also To transfer the stage carriage permit 10/811/2000 from Sri Faisal s/o Fathima to Sri Yasik K S/o Alavi. The applicant has not produced any valid vehicle for replacement. Thus the permit is not operational and no stage carriage is attached to the permit. Since the permit is not valid; the application for transfer of permit is not maintainable. Hence the application for transfer of permit is rejected. Additional Item No.12 Heard.This is to consider the belated application for replacement of vehicle of the stage carriage in respect of KL 54 K 6722 with regular permit in respect of stage carriage KL 10 R 5373 (10/127/02) valid up to 09.06.2022 on the route of Kumbidi-Puthanpally with halt at Nariparamba as ordinary service. The seating capacity of primary vehicle is 28 and that of the incoming vehicle is 34. The incoming vehicle is a later model vehicle. Thus replacement is allowed as per law. Additional Item No.13 Heard.This is to consider the belated renewal of permit application submitted by the permit holder of the stage carriage KL 10 AD 1473 on the route Malpuram – Manjeri as ordinary service. The permit No 10/526/2003 was expired on 10/09/2018. Renewal application was submitted on 31/08/2018. There was a delay of five days in submitting the application. Now, the permit holder has submitted a request for condone the delay with a medical

64 certificate. Delay is condoned and renewal of permit allowed subject to the production of NOC from financier, if applicable and also realization of Govt. dues, if any. Additional Item No.14 Heard.This is to consider the renewal of permit application submitted by the R/O of the S/C KL 55 E 218 on the route Kuttippuram-Kozhikkode as LSOS which was expired on 14.05.2018 and also to consider the transfer of permit no 10/831/1988. Transfer of permit is allowed subject to the renewal of permit. These are subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Additional Item No.15 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Additional Item No.16 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Additional Item No.17 This is to consider the Transfer of permit (by death) application submitted by the possessor of the stage carriage KL 02 R 7414 on 05/08/2015 on the route Purathur - Parappanangadi The permit no.10/824/1996 was expired on 26/03/2016 and also to consider the renewal application in respect of the stage carriage KL 02 R 7414. This authority has verified the applications and connected files. Renewal and Transfer of permit (by death) applications were allowedsubject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Additional Item No.18 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Additional Item No.19 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Additional Item No.20 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Additional Item No.21 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Additional Item No.22 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Additional Item No.23

65

Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Additional Item No.24 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Additional Item No.25 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Additional Item No.26 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Additional Item No.27 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Additional Item No.28 Heard the learned counsel. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any.

Additional Item No.29 This is 1) To peruse the judgement of the Hon. High Court in WP (C) No. 23597 of 2018 2) To consider the application for changing halting place from Mongam to Manjeri town in respect of A/R KL 10 AW 6313 3) To consider the application for changing halting place from Thrikkalangode to Manjeri town in respect of A/R KL 10 BA 1363 This authority has verified the directions contained in the judgement of the Hon. High Court in WP (C) No. 23597 of 2018and considered the application and connected records as per law. The application submitted by the petitioner is proper and regular. The applicant was heard by this authority and also perused connected records in detail. This authority has also considered the findings of the enquiry report submitted by the Joint Regional Transport Officer, Malappuram. He has submitted that, since there are many educational institutions, major hospitals, commercial establishments are functioning in Manjeri Town, the roads in and around the town are always busy with stage carriages, goods vehicles, private vehicles and many other types of passenger vehicles. Traffic congestion and related accidents are a usual phenomenon in Manjeri town. However people at large depend upon Autorikshaws as an easy avenue of transportation. But, the process of earmarking Autorikshaw stands is still due in Manjeri Municipality. The direction of the Hon‟ble High Court to keep a margin of 1.5 meter distance from the road, are not properly followed at present in the town due to lack of space and overcrowding

66 of authorikshaw permits. Because of the widening of the roads from time to time, there is no room to park autorikshawas after leaving a margin of 1.5 M off the road. Most of the Autorikshaws are being parked on the road itself at present. This is often causing road accidents and even causalities at times. Out of the auto parks in Manjeri Municipality, only in three authoriksha stands situate fully off the road, while all other parks are situated either partially or fully on the road itself. It is for the authorities of Manjeri Municipality to set apart sufficient parking areas for Autorikshaws so that the vehicles can park off the road. Several discussions were held with the Municipal authorities to earmark parking stand for autoriskshaws in the town, but they have expressed their helplessness to find a suitable place for parking more vehicles. As per the request from the Secretary, RTA Malappuram, Manjeri Municipal council has discussed the matter in their Council Meeting and informed that presently they were unable to find a suitable parking place for more autorikshawas. Thus, we are of the opinion that under the given circumstances, the condition will be worsened if more and more Autorikshaws are permitted to operate with designated auto parks. Further, from the permit conditions it is clear that the petitioner can operate his service including within Manjeri Municipal limit. But his plea is only to lift the condition imposed by this authority for idle parking. The condition for idle parking was imposed for avoiding further traffic congestions in the town, as the heart of the city was already saturated with vehicles, school and college students, and pedestrians as well. Rule 344, of KMV Rules 1989 empowers this authority to determine the location of a parking place for Autorikshaws and taxies in consultation with concerned authorities of any Corporation, Municipality or Panchayath; the Executive Engineer and with the District Police Chief. Thus, we have considered the applications in its individual merit as per the direction of Hon. High Court of Kerala in WP(C) No. 23597 of 2018 and rejected.

Additional Item No.30 This is to consider the request the application for the grant of Agent‟s license for the sale of tickets to the passengers of public service vehicles. We have considered the application in detail. However the details submitted by the Secretary, RTA is not suffice to take a right approach to this application. The enquiry officer has to ascertain that the application is genuine and strictly as per relevant portions of law. In this context, Secretary RTA will conduct another detailed enquiry as per law and submit a detailed report before this authority. Hence decision on this application is adjourned.

67

Additional Item No. 31 Heard. This is to consider the report of scientific study conducted by NATPAC on revised traffic re-arrangements for public transport services in Manjeri town forwarded by the Traffic Regulatory Committee, Manjeri. This authority has considered this matter several times and lastly on 10.01.2018 in Supplementary Item No. 1. Based on the suggestion of this authority, NATPAC has conducted a scientific study on the matter concerned and submitted a detailed report. The same has been considered by the Traffic Regulatory Committee, Manjeri held on 07.09.2018 and they have forwarded the report for further consideration. This authority has further considered the report and verified the recommendations and suggestions of NATPAC. In the open hearing of this authority, there were still contentions and objections from various corners of the society against the proposed plan. Thus, we are of the common opinion that the issue needs to be examined further and a proposal with optimum consensus has to be arrived at. The traffic congestion in Majeri town has to alleviated and the newly constructed bus stand also needs to be fully operational, at the same time there should not be any inconvenience for the travelling public. In this context, we have decided to publish the document submitted by NATPAC for seeking public opinion on or before 10th October 2018. Common public can submit their suggestions on various options to reduce the traffic congestion in Manjeri Town and also for making the newly constructed bus stand operational before the Secretary, RTA and a final proposal will be placed before this authority for approval in the next sitting. Nevertheless to say that till then the present status quo on stage carriage service at Manjeri Municipality has to be maintained. Hence decision on this proposal is adjourned.

Sd/- 1. M.P. Ajithkumar, Deputy Transport Commissioner (C Z 1); Member, RTA

Sd/- 2. Prateesh Kumar IPS, District Police Chief & Member, RTA Malappuram

Sd/- 3. Amit Meena IAS, District Collector; Chairman of RTA, Malappuram.

68