Regional Transport Authority, 15.10.2019

Minutes of Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram Held on 15October 2019 Present: 1. Sri. Jafar Malik, IAS, District Collector; Chairman RTA, Malappuram. 2. Sri. Abdul Karim U. IPS, District Police Chief; Member, RTA Malappuram 3. Sri. M. Suresh, Deputy Transport Commissioner (CZ-1); Member, RTA Item No.1 Heard. This is to consider the application for fresh S/C permit to operate on the route – Thirunavaya – Thirur (via) Kuttikalathani, Pattarnadakkavu, Vairangode, Pullur, Ezhur, Thuvvakkad; Puthanathani – Allor (4 single trips). An enquiry on the application was conducted through Motor Vehicle Inspector, Sub-Regional Transport Office, . We have considered the application, route enquiry report and the comments raised in the open hearing of this authority for and against this application in detail. As per the report, this is an intra- district route with total Route length 31 Kms. There is no virgin portion in the proposed route. However there is an overlapping with the notified route between Puthanathani N H Junction to Puthanathani Bus stand for a distance of 300 Mts. The Enquiry Officer has further reported that as per G.O.(P) No. 8/2017/Tran.Dtd. 23.03.2017, this overlapping is not objectionable. The applicant has not officered any vehicle. There is an objection in the open hearing of this authority that there is lack of clarity in route and timings, especially between Puthanathani and Tirur. We have examined this matter and of the common opinion that this is not sustainable. All other objections were also considered as per law. Thus, we are of the common view that there is no legal impediment in granting the regular permit as sought by the applicant. Therefore fresh regular stage carriage permit on the proposed route is granted to a suitable stage carriage subject to settlement of timings. The grantee of the permit is directed to produce the current records of a stage carriage for endorsing the granted permit as specified in the decision of STA held on 16.01.2019 in Departmental item 1, that the upper age limit for applying and granting fresh regular permit to Ordinary, City/Town and LSOS stage carriage as eight years, 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. 2 Heard. This is to consider the application for fresh S/C permit to operate on the route Puthanathani – Tirur (via) Kuttikkalathani, Randal, Thuvvakkad, Pullur, Ezhur, Thirur – Puthanathani one single trip via Kalpakancherry; Halting Single trip via. B.P. Angadi, Karathur, Thirunavaya, Thirunavaya, Pattarnadakkavu touching Allur (10 Single Trips) via. Randal; touching Randathani, via. Vettichira, Muzhangani, Chelakkuth.

1

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

We have considered the application, route enquiry report and the comments raised in the open hearing of this authority for and against this application in detail. As per the report, this is an intra- district route with total Route length 55.6 Kms. There is no virgin portion in the proposed route. However there is an overlapping with the notified route between Puthanathani N H Junction to Vettichira for a distance of 2.7 Kms and also between TirurThazheppalam to B P Angadi for a distance of 3.2 Kms in – Chelari notified Scheme. However, the route enquiry officer has reported that as per G.O (P) No. 79/2015/Tran. Dtd. 08.12.2015, which are not objectionable. The applicant has not officered any vehicle. There is an objection in the open hearing of this authority that there is lack of clarity in route and timings, especially between Puthanathaniand Tirur. We have examined this matter and of the common opinion that this is not sustainable. All other objections were also considered as per law. Thus, we are of the common view that there is no legal impediment in granting the regular permit as sought by the applicant. Therefore fresh regular stage carriage permit on the proposed route is granted to a suitable stage carriage subject to settlement of timings. The grantee of the permit is directed to produce the current records of a stage carriage for endorsing the granted permit as specified in the decision of STA held on 16.01.2019 in Departmental item 1, that the upper age limit for applying and granting fresh regular permit to Ordinary, City/Town and LSOS stage carriage as eight years, 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. This is to consider the application for regular Stage Carriage permit to operate on the route Vilayil – Kozhikkode – AreacodeEdavannappara, Vazhakkad, Mundumuzhi, Oorkkadavu, Peruvayil and Medical College and Poomkudi as Ordinary Service. This is an inter-district route with a total route length 42.6 Kms. in which a distance of 20.1 Kms lies in the jurisdiction of Sister RTA Kozhikkode. We have considered the application, route enquiry report and the comments raised in the open hearing of this authority for and against this application in detail. As per the report of route enquiry officer, a distance of 20.1 Kms lies in the jurisdiction of Sister RTA, Kozhikkode and concurrence from that RTA is essential for further processing on this application. Hence Secretary, RTA will obtain concurrence from Regional Transport Authority, Kozhikkode and place the application before this authority and the decision on this application is adjourned.

2

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

Item No. 4 Heard. This is to consider the application for fresh S/C permit to operate on the route Tanur – Pandimuttam – Olappedika (via) Velliambram, Kunnumpuram, Madathil Road, Kurungad as Ordinary Service. We have considered the application, route enquiry report and the comments raised in the open hearing of this authority for and against this application in detail. As per the report, the total route length is 10.5 Kms. There is no virgin portion on the proposed route and there is no overlapping with any of the notified routes. Therefore fresh regular stage carriage permit on the proposed route is granted to a suitable stage carriage subject to settlement of timings. The grantee of the permit is directed to produce the current records of a stage carriage for endorsing the granted permit as specified in the decision of STA held on 16.01.2019 in Departmental item 1, that the upper age limit for applying and granting fresh regular permit to Ordinary, City/Town and LSOS stage carriage as eight years, 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. 5 Heard. This is to consider the application for fresh S/C permit to operate on the route Pandikkad – – – – Karuvarakkunde-Panthallor (via) Kodasserri, Cherukode, Peleppuram, Charamkavu, Kuttippara, Nellikkuth, Kizhakkepandikad, Olippuzha, Melattur, Ucharakkadavu, Unniyal, Alanellur, Kottopadam, , Oravambram, Nariyottupara as Ordinary Service We have considered the application, route enquiry report and the comments raised in the open hearing of this authority for and against this application in detail. As per the report, this is an inter district route with route length 90.5 Kms, of which 18 Kms lies in the jurisdiction of Sister RTA, . There is no virgin portion on the proposed route. However, an overlapping of 4 Kms. from Kumaramputhur to Mannarkkad lies in the notified portion; which is not objectionable. On further verification of application, the applicant has proposed one single trip to Panthallur, which is said to be an ill-served place. We are of the common opinion that more number of trips required to Panthallur for the benefit of travelling public. Hence Secretary, RTA in consultation with the applicant, propose more number of trips during peak hours to Panthallur and place the modified application before this authority. Thus, decision on this application is adjourned. Item No. 6 Heard. This is to consider the application for fresh S/C permit to operate on the route Chembra Colony – Edakkara (via) Santhigramam, Vaidyasalappadi, Bhoodanam Colony, Thudimutty Colony, Panamkayam Bridge, Njettikkulam, Pothukallu, Uppada, Kuriz, Nallamthanni, PaathirippadamSchoolpadi, Koukkad, Kalasagar, Mussiliyarangadi, From

3

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

Edakkara (2 Single Trips) (via) Mussiliyarangadi, Millumpadi, Karunechi, Manakkad, Pallippadi, Unichantha, Udharikulam, Chembankolli, Uppada, Kuriz touching Kodalippoyil, (2 single Trips) as ordinary service We have considered the application, route enquiry report and the comments raised in the open hearing of this authority for and against this application in detail. As per the report, this is an intra-district route with total route length 31 Kms. There is an overlapping of 1 Km from Kalasagar to Edakkara with notified route and which is not objectionable. There is also virgin portion from PanamkayamPalam to Chembra Colony for a distance of 6.6 Kms. The applicant has produced a fitness certificate and the fare stages proposed by the Motor Vehicles Inspector is verified and approved. Therefore fresh regular stage carriage permit on the proposed route is granted to a suitable stage carriage subject to settlement of timings. The grantee of the permit is directed to produce the current records of a stage carriage for endorsing the granted permit as specified in the decision of STA held on 16.01.2019 in Departmental item 1, that the upper age limit for applying and granting fresh regular permit to Ordinary, City/Town and LSOS stage carriage as eight years, 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. 7 Heard. This is to consider the application for fresh S/C permit to operate on the route Chembra Colony – Edakkara (via) Santhigramam, Vaidyasalappadi, Bhoodanam Colony, Thudimutty Colony, Panamkayam Bridge, Njettikkulam, Pothukallu, Uppada, Kuriz, Nallamthanni, PaathirippadamSchoolpadi, Koukkad, Kalasagar, Mussiliyarangadi, From Edakkara (Single Trip) (via) Mussiliyarangadi, Millumpadi, Karunechi, Manakkad, Pallippadi, Unichantha, Udharikulam, Chembankolli, Uppada, Kuriz touching Kodalippoyil, (2 single Trips) as ordinary service. We have considered the application, route enquiry report and the comments raised in the open hearing of this authority for and against this application in detail. As per the report, this is an intra-district route with total route length 31 Kms. There is an overlapping of 1 Km from Kalasagar to Edakkara with notified route and which is not objectionable. There is also virgin portion from PanamkayamPalam to Chembra Colony for a distance of 6.6 Kms. The applicant has produced a fitness certificate and the fare stages proposed by the Motor Vehicles Inspector is verified and approved. Therefore fresh regular stage carriage permit on the proposed route is granted to a suitable stage carriage subject to settlement of timings. The grantee of the permit is directed to produce the current records of a stage carriage for endorsing the granted permit as specified in the decision of STA held on 16.01.2019 in Departmental item 1, that the upper age limit for applying and granting fresh regular permit to Ordinary, City/Town and LSOS stage carriage as eight years, within thirty days of communication of this decision as per

4

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

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. 8 Heard. This is toconsider the application for fresh S/C permit to operate on the route Mannathichola – Pandikkad –Melattur with trips from Melattur to Chundapalli and trips from fromMelattur to Puthanpalli (via) MannathicholaHarijan Colony, Eriyad High School Padi, Pandikkad, kizhakkePandikkad, Olippuzha, Cholakkulam, Choorakkavu, Valarad, Edayattur, MaaniyaneerikkadavuPalam, Parakuzhi, Aalikkaparamba, AattumalaHarijan Colony, Thottappaya, Oravampuram trips from Melattur to Chundappalli (via) MaaniyerikkadavuPalam, Parakkuzhi, KeezhatturBhagavathi Temple, Keezhattur and Pallippadi and trips from Melattur to Puthenpalli (via) Ucharakkadavu, Banglamkunnu, Poovathikund – halt at Pandikkad as Ordinary Service We have considered the application, route enquiry report and the comments raised in the open hearing of this authority for and against this application in detail. As per the report, this is an intra-district route with route length 45.2 Kms. There is no virgin portion and no overlapping with the notified route. The applicant has offered the stage carriage KL 10 BC 7889 for endorsing the permit. Therefore fresh regular stage carriage permit on the proposed route is granted to the stage carriage KL 10 BC 7889 subject to settlement of timings. The grantee of the permit is directed to produce the current records of a stage carriage for endorsing the granted permit as specified in the decision of STA held on 16.01.2019 in Departmental item 1, that the upper age limit for applying and granting fresh regular permit to Ordinary, City/Town and LSOS stage carriage as eight years, 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. 9 Heard. This is to consider the application for fresh S/C permit to operate on the route Athavanadpara – Thirunavaya – Valancherry – Thirur (with first trip touching Kanjippura from Ambalapparambu) (via) Parithi, Oorathupalliyali, Chembi, Thirunavaya, Pattarnadakkavu, Kundilangadi, Kaattilangadi, Ambalapparambu, Parambukulam, Kavumpuram; trip to Thirur (via) Pattarnadakkavu, Bavappadi, Kuttikkalathani, Aalur, Vairankode, Elikkattiriparamba, Ezhur, Return trip (via) Thuvvakkad, Kurumbathoor, as Ordinary Service We have considered the application, route enquiry report and the comments raised in the open hearing of this authority for and against this application in detail. As per the report, this is an intra-district route with total route length 54.4 Kms. There is no virgin portion and the proposed route overlaps with notified route for a distance of 2.3 Kms. from Kavumpuram to Valancherry.

5

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

Further, the route enquiry officer has reported that there is average frequency of stage carriage operation (especially during early morning) from Athavanadpara to Thirunavaya via Parithi, Oorathupalliyali,Chembi is one hour and from Thirunavaya to Pattarnadakkavu via. Kundilangadi, kaattilangadi, Ambalapparambu, Kanhippura is 30 Mints. We have examined the application and proposal in detail. In the open hearing of this authority, there is vehement objection that the applicant intents only to operate on the sector Thirunavaya – Valancherry, which is well served with stage carriage operation at present. Since the proposed route overlaps with notified route for a distance of2.3Kms on this route, he has extended the route to Athavanadpara and Tirur to escape from the effect of notification and obtaining the permit. Thus the applicant has proposed a starting and halting trip to Athavanadpara and one single trip during late evening to Tirur. From the proposed time schedule, it is clear that the entire focus of operation is between Thirunavaya and Valancherry. We have considered these objections as per law and found sustainable. This authority is of the view that this is against the very interest of notification vide G O (P) No.42/2009/Tran dtd 14/07/2009 and revised as per G O (P) No. 08/2017/ Tran dtd 23/03/2017. Thus, we are not convinced on the very intention of the applicant and it is obvious that the applicant has proposed the route not for the benefit of travelling public. Thus, the application for the fresh stage carriage permit is rejected. Item No. 10 Heard. This is to consider the application for fresh S/C permit to operate on the route Athavanadpara – Thirunavaya – Valancherry – Thirur (via) Parithi, Oorathupalliyali, Chembi, Thirunavaya, Pattarnadakkavu, Kundilangadi, Kaattilangadi, Ambalapparambu, Parambukulam, Kavumpuram, Thirur (via) Pattarnadakkavu, Bavappadi, Kuttikkalathani, Aalur, Vairankode, Elikkattiriparamba, Ezhur, Return trip (via) Thuvvakkad, Kurumbathoor, as Ordinary Service We have considered the application, route enquiry report and the comments raised in the open hearing of this authority for and against this application in detail. As per the report, this is an intra-district route with total route length 54.4 Kms. There is no virgin portion and the proposed route overlaps with notified route for a distance of 2.3 Kms. from Kavumpuram to Valancherry. Further, the route enquiry officer has reported that there is average frequency of stage carriage operation (especially during early morning) from Athavanadpara to Thirunavaya via Parithi, Oorathupalliyali,Chembi is one hour and from Thirunavaya to Pattarnadakkavu via. Kundilangadi, kaattilangadi, Ambalapparambu, Kanhippura is 30 Mints. We have examined the application and proposal in detail. In the open hearing of this authority, there is vehement objection that the applicant intents only to operate on the sector Thirunavaya – Valancherry, which is well served with stage carriage operation at present. Since the proposed route overlaps with notified route for a distance of2.3Kms on this route, he has extended the route to Athavanadpara and Tirur to escape from the effect

6

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

of notification and obtaining the permit. Thus the applicant has proposed a starting and halting trip to Athavanadpara and one single trip during late evening to Tirur. From the proposed time schedule, it is clear that the entire focus of operation is between Thirunavaya and Valancherry. We have considered these objections as per law and found sustainable. This authority is of the view that this is against the very interest of notification vide G O (P) No.42/2009/Tran dtd 14/07/2009 and revised as per G O (P) No. 08/2017/ Tran dtd 23/03/2017. Thus, we are not convinced on the very intention of the applicant and it is obvious that the applicant has proposed the route not for the benefit of travelling public. Thus, the application for the fresh stage carriage permit is rejected. Item No. 11 Heard. This is to consider the application for fresh S/C permit to operate on the route Kolathur – Puthanathani (via) Padapparamba, Chattiparamba, Chappanangadi, Arichol, Chendi, Kottappuram, Indianoor, Kooriyad, Villoor, Kavathikalam, Puthur, ,Changuvetty, Parambilangadi, Cherusola, Variyath, Kanacherry and Athirumada as Ordinary Service We have considered the application, route enquiry report and the comments raised in the open hearing of this authority for and against this application in detail. As per the report, this is an intra-district route with route length 58.8 Kms. There is virgin portion from Variath to Kanancherry for a distance of 1 Km. Further there is overlapping with notified portion from Chankuvetty to Parambilangadi for a distance of 1.2 Kms and also from Athirumada to Puthanathani for a distance of 1.7 Kms. Thus there is an overlapping of 2.9 Kms in total. Applicant also produced an endorsement from the Assistant Engineer, LSGD Section Kalpakancherry Grama Panchayath stating that the virgin portion is fit for stage carriage operation. Further, from the proposed time schedule, it is obvious that the focus of operation is Kottakkal – Puthanathani. Since there is an overlapping of 2.9 Kms the applicant has extended starting halting trips to Kolathur. This is not acceptable and we are of the common view that the time schedule has to modified in such a way that all trips has to be operated to Kolathur for the benefit of travelling public. The Secretary, RTA in consultation with the applicant will modify the time schedule 1) as explained above 2) in such a way that adequate number of trips are through the virgin portion and 3) fix and publish fare stages for the virgin portion and place the modified application before this authority for further consideration. The applicant has produced an endorsement from the Assistant Engineer, LSGD Section, stating that the road is fit for stage carriage operation. Executive Engineer, being the competent authority to suggest the fitness of road, the Secretary, RTA will seek a certificate

7

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

in proper format from the Executive Engineer, LSGD and submit along with the modified application. Hence decision on this application is adjourned. Item No. 12 Heard. This is to consider the application for fresh S/C permit to operate on the route Padapparamba – Puthanathani (via) Chattiparamba, Chappanangadi, Kottakkal, Changuvetti, Parambilangadi, Cherussola, Variyath, Kanancherry, Athirumada, Villur, Kooriad, Thalakappu, Thottappai, Kottappuram, Chendi, Indanoor, Kaavathikkalam, Koottoor, Maravattam, Kadambuzha as Ordinary Service We have considered the application, route enquiry report and the comments raised in the open hearing of this authority for and against this application in detail. As per the report, this is an intra-district route with 62.4 Kms route length. In which there is virgin portion of 1 Km from Variath to Kanancheri. There is an overlapping of 2.9 Kms in the notified sector of which 1.2 Kms from Chankuvetti to Parambilangadi and also 1.7 Kms from Athirumada to Puthananthani. The route enquiry officer has reported that the overlapping portion is less than 5% of the total route length and the same is not objectionable. However, the fare stages for virgin portion needs to be fixed and the Secretary, RTA will do the needful to 1) fix the fare stages for virgin portion and 2) ensure that adequate number of trips are through the virgin portion. And place a modified application before this authority; The applicant has produced an endorsement from the Assistant Engineer, LSGD Section stating that the road is fit for stage carriage operation. Executive Engineer, being the competent authority to suggest the fitness of road, the Secretary, RTA will seek a certificate in proper format from the Executive Engineer, LSGD and submit along with the modified application. Hence decision on this application is adjourned. Item No.13 Heard. This is to peruse the directions contained in the Judgment of Hon. STAT in MVAA 31/2017; Dtd. 31.07.2017 (2) To re-consider the modified application for fresh stage carriage permit to operate on the route Pookoottumpadam – Manjeri via. , Karuvarakunde, Puthanezhi, Pullikkuth, Mannarmala, Melattur, Ucharakadavu, Mannarmala, Pattikkad, (Tharayil Bus Stand), Tirurkad, , Anakayam, Manjeri, Perinthalmanna, Pookkottumpadam, Karuvarakunde and Halting single trip from Perinthalmanna via. Vettatur, Kulapparamba, Kanhirampara, Melattur, Pullikuth, Anjilangadi, Myladi, Puthanezhi as OS. (Vehicle offered KL 10 S 2217) We have considered the application, route enquiry report and the comments raised in the open hearing of this authority for and against this application in detail. As per the report of route enquiry officer, this is an inter-district route with total route length 102.5 Kms in which portion of the route in is 100.6 Kms and in is 1.9Kms. There is no virgin portion on the proposed route; However, as per the modified

8

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

proposal, there is an overlapping with notified route fromPerinthalmanna to Thirurkkad for a distance of 5.6Kms,which is objectionableas per G.O.(P) No. 8/2017/Tran.Dtd. 23.03.2017. The application was placed before this authority held on 21.05.2015 in Item No. 29 and the decision was adjourned with following remarks (1) The Secretary, RTA is directed to submit a specific report on overlapping distance with notified portion on the proposed route. (2) The applicant is directed to produce another stage carriage with no valid fresh permit attached for endorsing the permit and place before next RTA. Meanwhile the applicant has produced a judgment from Hon. High Court of in WP(C) No. 4495 of 2016 Dtd. 16.02.2016, which direct the Secretary, RTA, Malappuramto take the proceedings to a logical end within one month and the final orders on the application for regular permit shall be passed within the time stipulated. In obedience to the direction of RTA, the application was re-enquired by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Perinthalmanna and reported that: The Portion of the route from Thirurkad to Perinthalmanna is overlapping with notified sector. The actual distance of overlapping from Thirurkad to Perinthalmanna (Manazhi Bus Stand) is 7.3 Kms. Total route length is 102.5 Kms. As per GO (P) 42/2009/Trans Dtd.14.07.2009 clause 5 (c) this overlapping is objectionable. Regional Transport Authority (By circulation) rejected the request of the applicant since the overlapping distance is more than permissible limits. Against the decision of RTA, the applicant has approached Hon. STAT and produced a Judgment in MVAA 31/2017; Dtd. 31.07.2017. In the Judgment, Hon. Tribunal has given an opportunity for the applicant to submit a modified proposal avoiding the objectionable portion of the overlapping and there is a direction to this authority to consider the application within four months. Now, the applicant has submitted the following:  The prime modification requested was by avoiding the Manazhi Bus Stand and permit may be allowed to Perinthalmanna town (Tharayil Bus stand) so that the notified portion will be reduced to 5 Kms.  The distance from Perinthalmanna to Thirurkkad has been calculated as 5 Kms in all other existing permits. The matter was further enquired by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, SRTO Perinthalmanna and he has specifically mentioned that the distance from Perinthalmanna to Thirurkkad is more than 5 Kms. He has measured the distance from three major points (Manazhi Bus Stand, Tharayil Bus Stand and Central Junction) and found that the distance overlapped with notified portion is more than 5 Kms and which is objectionable as per GO (P) 42/2009/Trans Dtd.14.07.2009.

9

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

In the open hearing of this authority there is vehement objection from KSRTC that the overlapping distance is more than 5 Kms and it is objectionable. We found the objections sustainable and as per the report of the route enquiry officer there is legal impediment in sanctioning the permit, since the overlapping distance is more than 5 Kms, which is against the conditions stipulated in G.O.(P) No. 8/2017/Tran.Dtd. 23.03.2017 and GO (P) 42/2009/Trans Dtd.14.07.2009 and hence we have considered the modified application submitted as per the directions in contained in the Judgment of Hon. STAT and rejected the application for regular stage carriage permit on the route Pookoottumpadam – Manjeri. Item No. 14 Heard. This is to peruse the directions contained in the Judgment of Hon. STAT in MVAA No. 14/2019; 01.02.2019 (2) To re-consider the modifiedapplication for fresh S/C permit to operate on the route – Tirur (via) Chembi, Thirunavaya, Codakkal, Thuprangode, Alathiyoor, B P Angadi, Thazhepalam, Ezhur, Vairankode, Patternadakkavu, Edakkulam and also via. Karathoor as Ordinary Service. We have considered the application, route enquiry report and the comments raised in the open hearing of this authority for and against this application in detail. As per the report, this is an intra-district route with 41.7 Kms route length. There is no virgin portion on the proposed route. However the route overlaps with notified portion as per G.O.(P) No. 79/2015/Tran. Dtd. 08.12.2015 Ponnani – Chelari, from Althiyoor to Thazheppalam for a distance of 6.4 Kms.The route enquiry officer has reported that the overlapping is not objectionable. The matter was considered by the RTA held on 19.04.2018 in Item No. 5 and the application was rejected based on the decision of STA held on 14.06.2017 in Departmental Item 2. Against the decision of RTA, the applicant has approached Hon. STAT and produced a Judgment in MVAA No. 14/2019; 01.02.2019. In which there was a direction by Hon. STAT to reconsider the application as per Rule 159(2) of KMVR and also as per E.P Alavikkutty v. RTA (2005(1) KLJ 205), set aside the decision of RTA and directed to re- consider the application afresh and pass orders. We have reconsidered the matter afresh as directed by Hon. STAT and is of the opinion that there is no legal impediment in granting the regular stage carriage permit on the above route. Therefore fresh regular stage carriage permit on the proposed route is granted to a suitable stage carriage subject to settlement of timings. The grantee of the permit is directed to produce the current records of a stage carriage for endorsing the granted permit as specified in the decision of STA held on 16.01.2019 in Departmental item 1, that the upper age limit for applying and granting fresh regular permit to Ordinary, City/Town and LSOS stage carriage as eight years, within thirty days of communication of this decision as per

10

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

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 purse the directions contained in the judgment of Hon. STAT in MVARP No. 60/2019; Dtd. 28.06.2019 (2) To re-consider the application for fresh S/C permit to operate on the route Pandikkad – KottothkunneHarijan Colony (via) KizhakkePandikkad, Olippuzha, Oravambram, Chemmanthatta, AattumalaHarijan Colony, Alikkaparambu, ManiyanirikkadavuPalamMelattur, Ucharakkadavu, Aalungal, KombankalluPalam, Pookadi, Kathilakkal Colony and AlunkunnuSchoolpadi Colony as Ordinary Service We have considered the application, route enquiry report and the comments raised in the open hearing of this authority for and against this application in detail. As per the report, this is an inter-district route. Portion of the proposed route overlaps with the jurisdiction of Sister RTA, Palakkad.There is no virgin portion and no overlapping with notified route. The application was considered by this authority held on 01.02.2019 in additional supplementary item 1. The decision on this application was adjourned for want of concurrence from Sister RTA, Palakkad. Against the decision of this authority the applicant approached Hon. STAT and produced a Judgment in MVARP No. 60/2019 in which Hon. STAT set aside the decision of RTA to seek concurrence from Sister RTA, Palakkad and directed to re-consider the prayer of the applicant to get the counter signature in lieu of concurrence and pass orders in accordance with law. We have verified the connected files in detail. The Secretary, RTA has requested for concurrence from Sister RTA, Palakkad for the overlapping portion thus complied the conditions stipulated in Sub Rule (1) of KMVR 171. We have also verified Rule 171 (2) of KMVR Which clearly states The Regional Transport Authority granting a stage carriage permit under sub rule (1) shall before granting the permit, obtain the concurrence of Regional Transport Authority or Regional Transport Authorities of the other region or regions concerned. Thus the decision of this authority taken in our earlier sitting held on 01.02.2019 in Supplementary Item 1 was as per the provisions stipulated by law. Thus, as per the direction of Hon. STAT reconsidered the application and verified connected files in detail. Since, portion of the route overlaps with the jurisdiction of Sister RTA, Palakkad, we are of the common view that concurrence has to be obtained from Sister RTA, Palakkad for further proceedings on this application. The Secretary, RTA will send one reminder to the Sister RTA, Palakkad for speedy disposal on the request for concurrence from this authority.

11

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

Thus we are of the opinion that the decision on this application for fresh regular stage carriage permit will be taken after obtaining concurrence from the Sister RTA, Palakkad. Hence the decision is adjourned. Item No.16 Heard. This is to re-consider the application for regular Stage Carriage permit to operate on the route Perinthalmanna – Karad School Padi (via) PattikkadChungam, Arikkandampak, Thottappaya, Oravambram, Pandikkad, Cherukode, Wandoor, Pulikkal, Shariyil, Nayattukallu, VellambramBhajanamadam as Ordinary Service We have considered the application, route enquiry report and the comments raised in the open hearing of this authority for and against this application in detail. As per the report, this is an intra-district route with 38 Kms route length. There is no virgin portion on the proposed route and no overlapping with notified sector. This application was previously considered by this authority held on 10.07.2019 in Item 6 and adjourned for a revised set of timings with more number of trips to Karad School. Subsequently the applicant has submitted a revised time schedule as suggested by this authority. Therefore fresh regular stage carriage permit on the proposed route is granted to a suitable stage carriage subject to settlement of timings. The grantee of the permit is directed to produce the current records of a stage carriage for endorsing the granted permit as specified in the decision of STA held on 16.01.2019 in Departmental item 1, that the upper age limit for applying and granting fresh regular permit to Ordinary, City/Town and LSOS stage carriage as eight years, 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 is to re-consider the application for regular Stage Carriage permit to operate on the route – Pothukallu – Chembra Colony via. Vydyasalappadi, Bhoodanam Colony, Thudimutti, Panamkayam Bridge, Nhettikulam, Chembra Colony via.Santhigramam – Halt at Chembra Colony as Ordinary Service We have considered the application, route enquiry report and the comments raised in the open hearing of this authority for and against this application in detail. As per the report, this is an intra-district route with total route length 8.1 Kms. There is virgin portion from PanamkayamPalam to Chembra Colony for a distance of 6.4 Kms. Fare stages proposed by the route enquiry officer will be published and approved. The matter was previously considered by this authority and adjourned the decision for want of a fitness certificate for the portion Panamkayam Bridge to Bhoodanam Colony Road. The applicant has produced a copy of the same which was considered by this authority previously and issued permit based on this report Therefore fresh regular stage carriage permit on the proposed route is granted to a suitable stage carriage subject to settlement of timings. The grantee of the permit is directed to

12

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

produce the current records of a stage carriage for endorsing the granted permit as specified in the decision of STA held on 16.01.2019 in Departmental item 1, that the upper age limit for applying and granting fresh regular permit to Ordinary, City/Town and LSOS stage carriage as eight years, 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.18 Heard. This is to re-consider the application for fresh S/C permit to operate on the route Puthananangadi-Malappuram- Kaippattakund -Kottappuram-Thottappaya via Puthuparamb- Chankuvetty-Kottakkal-Puthur--Ponmala-Vadakkemanna- Kavala-Pottikkallu-Indianoor-Chunur-Kuriyad-Thalakap-Villur –Halt at Chankuvetty. We have considered the application, route enquiry report and the comments raised in the open hearing of this authority for and against this application in detail. As per the report, this is an intra-district route with total route length 44.2 Kms. There is no virgin portion on the proposed route and an overlapping of 2.1 Kms with notified sector from AVS College to Chankuvetty for a distance of 0.5 Kms and in Malappuram Town from Kottappadi Traffic Circle to Kunnummal for a distance of 1.6 Kms. As per the report, which are not objectionable. The application was placed before the Regional Transport Authority held on 10.07.2019 in Item No. 17 and the decision was adjourned with a direction to ascertain the exact distance or overlapping with the notified portion on the proposed route. Motor Vehicle Inspector, Malappuram has conducted an enquiry on this matter and as per his report the total distance of overlapping is 2.1 Kms and which is below 5% of the total route length. Therefore fresh regular stage carriage permit on the proposed route is granted to a suitable stage carriage subject to settlement of timings. The grantee of the permit is directed to produce the current records of a stage carriage for endorsing the granted permit as specified in the decision of STA held on 16.01.2019 in Departmental item 1, that the upper age limit for applying and granting fresh regular permit to Ordinary, City/Town and LSOS stage carriage as eight years, 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 Heard. This is to consider the request for granting maximum time allowed as per Rule 159 of Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 for producing current records for endorsing the granted permit on the route Vengara – O K M Nagar (via) Cinima Hall, Minikappu, Kunhippuraya, Kilinakkode, Malaparambu as Ordinary Service by the Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram held on 10.07.2019 in Item No. 16. Now, 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 a suitable vehicle.

13

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

This authority has considered the request and allowed maximum time for the production of current records as per Rule 159 of KMVR. Item No.20 Heard. This is to consider the request for granting maximum time allowed as per Rule 159 of Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 for producing current records for endorsing the granted permit on the route KuzhipuramKavala-Vengara-Kottakkal via Iringallur- Palani- Vengara – Kacheripadi- Puthanathani-Puthuparamb- Chankuvetti-Tharayittal-Chinakkal- - Kumankallu as Ordinary Service by the Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram held on 10.07.2019 in Item No. 13. Now, 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 a suitable vehicle. This authority has considered the request and allowed maximum time for the production of current records as per Rule 159 of KMVR. Item No. 21 Heard. This is to suggest the nature of action to be taken on the application for endorsing the granted permit by the Regional Transport Authority held on 01.02.2019 in Item No. 9 on the route Vengara – University via. Vettuthodu, Poocholamadu, Achanambalam, Peranthkkal Temple, Vattapontha, Cherekkad, Colony Road, ThottasseriAra, Kunnumpuram, Puthiyathuparamba, Yarathumpadi, Pukayur, Chulliyalappuram, Kollanchina, Kadappadi, Parambilpeedika, Neerolpalam, Devathiyal and Kohinoor as Ordinary Service in which the applicant could not produce a suitable vehicle for endorsing the decision of RTA within 30 days of communication of decision. Also, he could not submit any request for granting maximum time for the production of current records; however he has produced a new stage carriage within a period of four months of communication of decision. This authority has considered the request and allowed maximum time for the production of current records as per Rule 159 of KMVR. Item No.22 Heard. 1. This is to reconsider the application for variation of regular permit in respect of the stage carriage KL 55 G 950 for curtailment of 2 single trips between Kavilakad-Tirur.Thisstage carriage is now operating on the route of Kavilakad-Tirur via Chamravattam, Alathiyur, B P Angadi as ordinary service. 2. This application was considered and adjourned by this authority held on 10.07.2019 vide supplementary item No. 2; since there was vehement objection from other en-route operators that they were not able to study the supplementary agenda and needs to be adjourned.

14

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

3. The application and the report of the enquiry officer were verified by this authority in detail. As per the report of Motor Vehicle Inspector, Sub- Regional Transport Office Tirur that,  No changes in the halting place  At present there is another 4 buses operating services on the sector Kavilakad-Tirur and the proposed curtailment not affect the travelling publics. The permit had been granted by this authority to cater the travelling needs of the public of the proposed route based on the report of a competent officer. Now, another officer has submitted a report stating that a curtailment will not affect the travelling public. The report is not reliable and we cannot accept it as it is. Moreover the existing timings was not submitted for verification. 4. This authority has also verified the provisions contained in Section 80 (3) of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, which deals with the variation of conditions of permit. We are of the common view that this application does not come under the provisions contained in Section 80 (3) of Motor Vehicles Act. The route enquiry officer without examining the nature of application has submitted a report for variation of conditions of permit and this authority is not in a position to accept this view that the variation is beneficial for the public. The Secretary, RTA has to view this matter with due seriousness in future. 5. We have also examined the provisions contained in Rule 145 (6) of Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules 1989, which deals with the variation of permit conditions. This Rule enables this authority to decide on the nature of action to be taken an application for variation; obviously any of the conditions stipulated in this Rule are applicable to this application. 6. Further, we have considered this application as per the provisions contained in Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules 145 (7) which describes how this authority has to consider an application for variation and/or change in existing timing schedule, namely i) Need for Provision of additional facilities or for revision of existing timings in the interest of public ii) Special circumstances, such as changes in the railway timings, changes in the number of permits either on the route or on the sectors of the route, or variation of the routes. 7. The applicant has submitted as if his application for curtailment is as per the interest of public. However there is no statistical evidence and or there is no empirical evidence available before this authority to accept the claim of the applicant. This authority also considered the fact that the permit had been issued to the applicant by considering all these aspects which are mentioned by the applicant and at present, nothing special situation has aroused to curtail a portion of the route and/or change in existing time schedule on the approved route. 8. The curtailment of portion of the route will normally create a disturbance in the smooth flow of stage carriages on this route. The timings settled and issued to the applicant,

15

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

obviously after considering the time gap on the route and convening a timing conference. If the requested changes have been made, definitely this will travelling public and ultimately result in putting obstacle on the benefits enjoyed by the regular passengers. 9. The Regional Transport Authority is the statutory authority constituted for the consideration of applications in accordance with Motor Vehicles Act and Rules made there under and also for the interest of the travelling public. 10. However a detailed and objective enquiry report on the above aspects is highly essential for taking a right approach on this application. Hence, in the light of the facts and circumstances explained above, the Secretary, RTA will conduct another enquiry with an officer not below the rank of a Joint Regional Transport Officer and place this application before this authority. Hence decision on this application is adjourned. Item No.23 Heard. This is to consider the application for variation of regular permit in respect of the stage Carriage KL 55 F 290 for extending the route from 1. Puthuparamba to Puthanangadi via Manhemad Palam (4 singlte trips) on the existing regular route without curtailment and without changing existing timings The Stage Carriage KL 55 F 290 is now operating on the route of Perinthalmanna - Puthuparamba touching Indianoor via Kavathikalam, Pang South via Aakkaparamba road. 2. This authority has considered the application, enquiry report of the officer and relevant Sections of Motor Vehicles Act and related rules framed thereunder. Thus, we are of the common opinion that the requested extension will be beneficial for the interest of travelling public and the same is granted subject to settlement of timings. The applicant is directed to produce the current records of the stage carriage within 30 days of communication of this decision otherwise the decision will be revoked without further notice. Item No.24 Heard. 1. This is to consider the application for variation of regular permit in respect of the stage Carriage KL 12 J 1617 a). for varying the regular permit for extending cut trips from Unniyal to Tirur by b). curtailment of Tanur - Ottumpuram (8 single trips) on the existing regular route. The Stage Carriage KL 12 J 1617 is now operating on the route of Ottumpuram - Tirur via Tanur, Puthiyakadapuram, Unniyal, Pookayil with halt at Tanur. 2. The matter was enquired through Motor Vehicle Inspector, Sub-Regional Transport Office, as per the report:  The proposed variation is through the notified sector Tirur - Thazhempalam to Pookayil, 1.7 Km in GO (p) No 79/2015/trans – Ponnani - Chelarinotified scheme.  Clause 19 of the notified No 42/2009 is violated.

16

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

 Curtailment of 8 single trips will not adversely affect the travelling public  Extension from Unniyal to Tirur is beneficial to the travelling public since the portion is under-served and through costal area  Total variation did not violates the section 80(3) The permit had been granted by this authority very recently with a view to cater the travelling needs of the public of the proposed route based on the report of a competent officer. As per records, timing of the permit was conducted a few weeks before and now the operator is trying to modify the permit. Now, another officer has submitted a report stating that a curtailment will not affect the travelling public with a positive recommendation for the consideration of this application. The report is not reliable and we cannot accept it as it is. 3. This authority has also verified the provisions contained in Section 80 (3) of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, which deals with the variation of conditions of permit. We are of the common view that this application does not come under the provisions contained in Section 80 (3) of Motor Vehicles Act. The route enquiry officer without examining the nature of application has submitted a report for variation of conditions of permit and this authority is not in a position to accept this view that the variation is beneficial for the public. The Secretary, RTA has to view this matter with due seriousness in future. 4. We have also examined the provisions contained in Rule 145 (6) of Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules 1989, which deals with the variation of permit conditions. This Rule enables this authority to decide on the nature of action to be taken an application for variation; obviously any of the conditions stipulated in this Rule are applicable to this application. 5. Further, we have considered this application as per the provisions contained in Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules 145 (7) which describes how this authority has to consider an application for variation and/or change in existing timing schedule, namely i) Need for Provision of additional facilities or for revision of existing timings in the interest of public ii) Special circumstances, such as changes in the railway timings, changes in the number of permits either on the route or on the sectors of the route, or variation of the routes. 6. The applicant has submitted as if his application for curtailment is as per the interest of public. However there is no statistical evidence and or there is no empirical evidence available before this authority to accept the claim of the applicant. This authority also considered the fact that the permit had been issued to the applicant by considering all these aspects which are mentioned by the applicant and at present, nothing special situation has aroused to curtail a portion of the route and/or change in existing timing schedule on the approved route. 7. The curtailment of portion of the route will normally create a disturbance in the smooth flow of stage carriages on this route. The timings settled and issued to the applicant,

17

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

obviously after considering the time gap on the route and convening a timing conference. If the requested changes have been made, definitely this will travelling public and ultimately result in putting obstacle on the benefits enjoyed by the regular passengers. 8. The Regional Transport Authority is the statutory authority constituted for the consideration of applications in accordance with Motor Vehicles Act and Rules made there under and also for the interest of the travelling public. 9. However a detailed and objective enquiry report on the above aspects is highly essential for taking a right approach on this application. Hence, in the light of the facts and circumstances explained above, the Secretary, RTA will conduct another enquiry with an officer not below the rank of a Joint Regional Transport Officer and place this application before this authority. Hence decision on this application is adjourned. Item No.25 Heard. 1. This is to consider the application for variation of regular permit in respect of the stage Carriage KL 57 275 for varying the regular permit to 1. deviate 4 single trips between Anangadi, and Kaduka Bazar via KadalundikadavPalam instead of via Kottakadav; 2. trip curtailment of 4 single trips from the Parapanangadi-Kettungal sector and 3. change of halting place from Tanur to by extending route from Chaliyam to Feroke(via) Karuvanthiruthy on the existing regular route. 2. The Stage Carriage KL 57 275 is now operating on the route of Kettungal-Chaliyam, Via Parapanangadi, AnangadiKottakadav, Kadalundi with Halt at Tanur as ordinary service. 3. We have considered the application and verified the reports and connected files and records. The matter was enquired through the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Thirurangadiand as per the report:  Change of halting place is the clear violation of section 80(3) of MV act.  Trip curtailment will be adversely affect the travelling public of that area.  Additional trip to Chaliyam will be beneficial to the travelling public of that area. 4. This authority has also verified the provisions contained in Section 80 (3) of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, which deals with the variation of conditions of permit. This authority is of the view that a permit is issued by considering the nature and characteristics of the travelling public of the area or in other words considering the existing needs. The travelling needs of the passengers were already been considered and the same has been addressed with the issuance of variation of permits. The applicant is placing his request with some personal interest and this authority cannot consider the same against the interest of the traveling public. Route enquiry officer has clearly mentioned that the change of halting place and trip curtailment will be adversely affected to the travelling public. Regional

18

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

Transport Authority is constituted to safeguard the interest of the travelling public and we cannot stand for a proposal which is against the interest of the common public. This is against the provisions depicted in Section 80(3) of M V Act. We have also examined the provisions contained in Rule 145 (6) of Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules 1989, which deals with the variation of permit conditions. This Rule enables this authority to decide on the nature of action to be taken an application for variation; as per this Rule, an application for variation has to be considered in view of i) new circumstances have arisen since the route was decided, such as the construction of bridge, or road; ii) the transport requirement of the area to be served were overlooked or have changed Obviously any of the conditions stipulated in this Rule are applicable to this application; the applicant could not convince this authority on the need of such a variation with respect to public convenience. Further, the route enquiry officer has reported that the change in halting place is a clear violation of Section 80 (3) of Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, in the light of the facts, circumstances and legal impediments explained above, this authority rejected the application for variation. Item No. 26 Heard. This is to consider the application for regular variation in respect of the vehicle KL 50 4797, operating on the route, Chulliyode – via. Karulayi, , Edavanna, Pannippara, Areacode, Touching via. Kizhisserry with the strength of the Regular Permit vide 10/39/2006 valid from 24.08.2016 to 23.08.2021, has applied for the extension of the trip from Chulliyode to Pookkottumpadam on the existing route. This authority has considered the application, enquiry report of the officer and relevant Sections of Motor Vehicles Act and related rules framed thereunder. The matter was enquired through the Motor Vehicle Inspector, SRTO, Nilambur, and the Report reveals the followings:- 1. The proposed variation is for extension of a trip from Chulliyode to Pookkottumpadam, a distance of 6 kms on the existing route. 2. There is no deviation, Curtailment, or Virgin portion for the variation sought.. 3. There is no Notified Sector on the portion for which variation is sought. 4. No changes in the existing timings. 5. Clause 19 of Notified No. 42/2009 is not violated. 6. The proposed variation is beneficial to the travelling public on the route. Thus, we are of the common opinion that the requested extension will be beneficial for the interest of travelling public and the same is granted subject to settlement of timings. The applicant is directed to produce the current records of the stage carriage within 30 days of

19

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

communication of this decision otherwise the decision will be revoked without further notice. Item No. 27 Heard. 1. This is to consider the application for regular variation in respect of the vehicle KL 53 K 2916, operating on the route, Mankada – Koottil- Pulamanthole touching Pang South via. Makkarapparamba, Malappuram, Chattipparamba, Vattallur, Padapparamba, Kolathurwith the strength of the Regular Permit vide 10/63/1999 valid from 25.02.2019 to 24.02.2024, has applied for the 1. extension of the trip from Companippadi to Palakkaparamba Via Ayyathparamba, Panikkapadi and Thora (one round trip) by 2. curtailment of the trip from Companippadi to Kolathur and 3. curtailment of the route from Mankada to Kottil on the existing regular route. 2. The matter was enquired through the Motor Vehicle Inspector, SRTO, Perinthalmanna, and as per the report: i) The proposed variation is for extension of a trip from Companipadi to Palakaparamba via Ayyathparamba, Panikkarpadi and Thora. ii) There is no Virgin portion for the variation sought. The Assistant Engineer, L.S.G.D.Section, Kuruva Grama Panchayath, Vattalloor, submitted report dated, 25.07.2019, has reported that the virgin portion is having sufficient width and condition of the Road is good for stage carriage operation. iii) There is no Notified Sector on the portion for which variation is sought. iv) The existing timings are changed. v) Clause 19 of Notified No. 42/2009 is not violated. vi) The proposed variation is beneficial to the travelling public on the route for which variation is sought; but, the curtailment of the trips as above, will adversely affect the travelling public on the route. 3. We have considered the application, verified the enquiry report and connected files in detail. The permit had been granted by this authority with a view to cater the travelling needs of the public of the proposed route based on the report of a competent officer. Now, another officer has submitted a report stating that a curtailment will affect the travelling public and the variation will be beneficial for the travelling public. Thus we cannot take a right approach on this application with such contradictory remarks of enquiry officer. He has not clearly stated that whether the extension will outweigh the curtailment or not. Thus, the report is not reliable and we cannot accept it as it is. 4. This authority has also verified the provisions contained in Section 80 (3) of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, which deals with the variation of conditions of permit. We are of the common view that this application does not come under the provisions contained in Section

20

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

80 (3) of Motor Vehicles Act. The route enquiry officer without examining the nature of application has submitted a report for variation of conditions of permit and this authority is not in a position to accept this view that this variation is beneficial for the public. The Secretary, RTA has to view this matter with due seriousness in future. 5. We have also examined the provisions contained in Rule 145 (6) of Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules 1989, which deals with the variation of permit conditions. This Rule enables this authority to decide on the nature of action to be taken an application for variation; obviously any of the conditions stipulated in this Rule are applicable to this application. 6. Further, we have considered this application as per the provisions contained in Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules 145 (7) which describes how this authority has to consider an application for variation and/or change in existing timing schedule, namely i) Need for Provision of additional facilities or for revision of existing timings in the interest of public ii) Special circumstances, such as changes in the railway timings, changes in the number of permits either on the route or on the sectors of the route, or variation of the routes. 7. The applicant has submitted as if his application for curtailment is as per the interest of public. However there is no statistical evidence and or there is no empirical evidence available before this authority to accept the claim of the applicant. This authority also considered the fact that the permit had been issued to the applicant by considering all these aspects which are mentioned by the applicant and at present, nothing special situation has aroused to curtail a portion of the route and/or change in existing timing schedule on the approved route. 8. The curtailment of portion of the route will normally create a disturbance in the smooth flow of stage carriages on this route. The timings settled and issued to the applicant, obviously after considering the time gap on the route and convening a timing conference. If the requested changes have been made, definitely this will travelling public and ultimately result in putting obstacle on the benefits enjoyed by the regular passengers. 9. The Regional Transport Authority is the statutory authority constituted for the consideration of applications in accordance with Motor Vehicles Act and Rules made there under and also for the interest of the travelling public. 10. However a detailed and objective enquiry report on the above aspects is highly essential for taking a right approach on this application. Hence, in the light of the facts and circumstances explained above, the Secretary, RTA will conduct another enquiry with an officer not below the rank of a Joint Regional Transport Officer and place this application before this authority. Hence decision on this application is adjourned.

21

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

Item No.28 Heard. 1. This is to peruse the Judgment in M.V.A.A. No. 64/2019 dated, 25.05.2019 and order in M.P. No. 642/2019 in M.V.A.A. No.64/2019, dated, 29.08.2019, of the Hon. STAT, Ernakulamand 2. Hence to re-consider the application for regular variation inspect of the Stage Carriage KL 10 R 8969 (now replaced by KL 06 C 4588), on the route Kottumalaparamba- Kondotty – Madanchina – OKM Nagar via Navodaya, Kottaloor, Mini Kappil, Kilinakode, Malaparamba, Cheroor, Kunnumpuram, Karuvankallu, Tharayittal, Kumminiparamba, Airport Jn, Vengara, Poocholamadu, Balanpeedika, Pakadapuraya, Kacherippady as ordinary service with the strength of Regular Permit 10/1373/2013 valid up to 01-03-2023 so as to i) Provide 8 additional single trips on the Vengara-OKM Nagar route (6 single trips via Chinnammapadi) ii) Two single trips via Mini and iii) Curtailment of the route from Chinnammapadi to Kondotty on the existing regular route. will adversely affect the public and which is a violation of Section 80(3) of Motor Vehicles Act. 3. This application was previously considered by R.T.A. Malappuaram in its sitting held on 01.02.2019 vide item 70 and rejected on following grounds: a) This authority rejected the application as per the report of Motor Vehicle Inspector; he has reported that this application is a violation of Section 80 (3) of Motor Vehicles Act. b) Further, this authority is not convinced on the very fact that how the proposed variation will be beneficial for the public. c) This authority is of the view that there is no such new circumstances have arisen as per KMVR 145 (6) & (7). d) Thus, we are of the common view that the application is against the interest of the public travelling on this route and in the light of the provisions contained in Section 80(3) of Motor Vehicles Act and KMVRs 145 (6) & (7). 4. The applicant Sri. Mohammed Haneefa has approached Hon. STAT in M.V.A.A. No. 64/2019 dated, 25.05.2019. Hon. STAT set aside the decision of this authority and observed that the route enquiry report clearly stated that the additional trip on the Vengara-OKM Nagar sector and the time changes on the Vengara-Madamchina route will benefit the travelling public and also reported that the curtailment will not affect seriously by the travelling public. 5. Thus, Hon. STAT directed this authority to grant the variation applied to the appellant. Since the application was further rejected by this authority, again the applicant approached Hon. STAT for a direction to this authority to comply the Judgment in M.V.A.A. No.64/2019. The Hon. STAT in M.P. No. 642/2019 in M.V.A.A. No.64/2019 dated,

22

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

29.08.2019 recorded the submission furnished by the learned Standing counsel that the application shall be place for consideration in the next R.T.A. meeting. 6. This authority has considered the application and all other relevant documents in detail. Also considered the directions contained in the Judgment of Hon. STAT as specified above. However we strongly feel that there are violations of Section 80 (3) and KMVR 145 (6) & (7). We have also examined the provisions contained in Rule 145 (6) of Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules 1989, which deals with the variation of permit conditions. This Rule enables this authority to decide on the nature of action to be taken an application for variation; obviously any of the conditions stipulated in this Rule are applicable to this application. Further, we have considered this application as per the provisions contained in Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules 145 (7) which describes how this authority has to consider an application for variation and/or change in existing timing schedule, namely i) Need for Provision of additional facilities or for revision of existing timings in the interest of public ii) Special circumstances, such as changes in the railway timings, changes in the number of permits either on the route or on the sectors of the route, or variation of the routes. 7. The applicant has submitted as if his application for curtailment is as per the interest of public. However there is no statistical evidence and or there is no empirical evidence available before this authority to accept the claim of the applicant. This authority also considered the fact that the permit had been issued to the applicant by considering all these aspects which are mentioned by the applicant and at present, nothing special situation has aroused to curtail a portion of the route and/or change in existing timing schedule on the approved route. 8. The curtailment of portion of the route will normally create a disturbance in the smooth flow of stage carriages on this route. The timings settled and issued to the applicant, obviously after considering the time gap on the route and convening a timing conference. If the requested changes have been made, definitely this will travelling public and ultimately result in putting obstacle on the benefits enjoyed by the regular passengers. 9. The Regional Transport Authority is the statutory authority constituted for the consideration of applications in accordance with Motor Vehicles Act and Rules made there under and also for the interest of the travelling public. 10. However a detailed and objective enquiry report on the above aspects is highly essential for taking a right approach on this application. Hence, in the light of the facts and circumstances explained above, the Secretary, RTA will conduct another enquiry with an officer not below the rank of a Joint Regional Transport Officer and place this application before this authority. Hence decision on this application is adjourned.

23

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

Item No.29 Heard. This is to 1) Peruse the Judgment in M.V.A.A. No. 150/2019 dated,20.09.2019, of the Hon. STAT, and 2) Hence to re-consider the application for regular variation inspect of the Stage Carriae, KL 10 AT 3031, operating on the route, Manjeri - Kozhikkode Medical College Via Valluvambram, Kondotty, as LSOS with Regular Permit 10/678/1996 valid upto 30-06-2019, so as to i) extension from Manjeri to Perimbalam 2 single trips via Manjeri Medical College, Anakkayam and Panayi (Halting and starting at Perimbalam )as LSOS by ii) curtailment from Kozhikkode to Kozhikkode Medical College on the existing regular route without changing existing timings. 3. The regular variation in respect of the Stage Carriage KL 10 AT 3031, was considered by this authority held on 01.02.02019 vide item 57and we have rejected the variation application The decision of this authority reads: The proposed variation includes curtailment and extension of route. The report of the enquiry officer is also not explaining how the curtailment will be beneficial to the common public. Frequency of bus service to Kozhikkode Medical College alone cannot be taken as an indicator for curtailment. We strongly oppose this viewpoint of the officer and are of the view that curtailment of existing portion of the route to Kozhikkode Medical College is against the interest of common public and thus it is a clear violation of Section 80 (3) of Motor Vehicles Act; the report of the route enquiry officer was also throws light on to the fact that the variation is not beneficial to the travelling public. Further, this authority is not convinced on the very fact that how the curtailment on the route is beneficial for the public. This authority is of the view that there is no such new circumstances have arisen as per KMVR 145 (6) & (7). Thus, this authority is of the common view that the application is against the interest of the public travelling on this route and in the light of the provisions contained in Section 80(3) of Motor Vehicles Act and KMVRs 145 (6) & (7), rejected the application for variation of permit.” 4. Aggrieved by this decision, the applicant approached Hon. STAT in M.V.A.A. No. 150/2019 dated, 20.09. 2019. Hon. STAT has allowed the appeal and set aside the decision of R.T.A. Malappuram. The appellate tribunal observed that the variation was rejected on the ground that the curtailment would adversely affect the travelling public and also in violation of Section 80(3) of M.V. Act and rule 154(6) of the K.M.V Rules. It is also stated that the report of the Route Enquiry officer shows that the variation is against the common public. However Hon. STAT observed that this is not factually correct.

24

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

5. We have re-considered the application and verified connected files and reports in detail. Also considered the directions contained in the Judgment of Hon. STAT as specified above. However we strongly feel that there are violations of Section 80 (3) and KMVR 145 (6) & (7). We have also examined the provisions contained in Rule 145 (6) of Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules 1989, which deals with the variation of permit conditions. This Rule enables this authority to decide on the nature of action to be taken an application for variation; obviously any of the conditions stipulated in this Rule are applicable to this application. Further, we have considered this application as per the provisions contained in Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules 145 (7) which describes how this authority has to consider an application for variation and/or change in existing timing schedule, namely i) Need for Provision of additional facilities or for revision of existing timings in the interest of public ii) Special circumstances, such as changes in the railway timings, changes in the number of permits either on the route or on the sectors of the route, or variation of the routes. 6. The applicant has submitted as if his application for curtailment is as per the interest of public. However there is no statistical evidence and or there is no empirical evidence available before this authority to accept the claim of the applicant. This authority also considered the fact that the permit had been issued to the applicant by considering all these aspects which are mentioned by the applicant and at present, no special situation has aroused to curtail a portion of the route and/or change in existing timing schedule on the approved route. 7. The curtailment of portion of the route will normally create a disturbance in the smooth flow of stage carriages on this route. The timings settled and issued to the applicant, obviously after considering the time gap on the route and convening a timing conference. If the requested changes have been made, definitely this will travelling public and ultimately result in putting obstacle on the benefits enjoyed by the regular passengers. 8. The Regional Transport Authority is the statutory authority constituted for the consideration of applications in accordance with Motor Vehicles Act and Rules made there under and also for the interest of the travelling public. 9. However a detailed and objective enquiry report on the above aspects is highly essential for taking a right approach on this application. Hence, in the light of the facts and circumstances explained above, the Secretary, RTA will conduct another enquiry with an officer not below the rank of a Joint Regional Transport Officer and place this application before this authority. Hence decision on this application is adjourned. Item No.30 Heard. This is to peruse the decision of RTA meeting held on 10.07.2019 as item No. 43 and revised report furnished by the Enquiry Officer and hence to re-consider the application for

25

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

regular variation in respect of the vehicle KL 57 B 3929, operating on the route, Palathole- Valambur via. Muthukurussi, Elamkulam, , Perintalmanna, , with the strength of the Regular Permit vide Permit No. 10/544/2000/M, valid from 30.08.2015 to 29.08.2020. The permit holder has applied for regular variation of conditions of permit so as to i) extend the route from Cherpulasserry to Kacherikunnu (2 single trips) and ii) from Cherpulasserry to Mangode Via Ungumthara and Veeramangalam (2single trips) without curtailment on the existing regular route. The matter was considered by this authority held on 10.07.2019 as item No. 43. We have adjourned the decision on this application for submitting revised specific report. As per the above direction revised report was obtained from the Motor vehicle Inspector dated, This report states that the variation sought without curtailing existing trips or places is highly beneficial to the travelling public like students, common public. The vehicle is proposed to be operated during the rest time. Thus, we are of the common opinion that the requested extension will be beneficial for the interest of travelling public and the same is granted subject to settlement of timings. The applicant is directed to produce the current records of the stage carriage within 30 days of communication of this decision otherwise the decision will be revoked without further notice. Item No. 31 Heard. 1. This is to consider the application for variation of permit in respect of the Stage Carriage KL 57 H 6278 on the route Edakkattuparambu- touching Koompara, Panampilavu and Mukkam Regular Permit 10/61740/2001 valid upto 20/11/2021. The permit holder applied for i) Additional trip between Thottumukkam and Areekkode (2 singles) and ii) between Thottumukkam and Edakkattuparambu (2 singles) by iii) curtailment of trip between Thottumukkam-Mukkam (via) Valillapuzha on the existing regular route 2. The matter was enquired by the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Malappuram and reported that:  Additional trip between Thottumukkam and Mukkam will be beneficial to the travelling public since the portion is ill-served and further additional trip between Thottumukkam and Edakkattuparambu also will be an advantage to the travelling public.  Trip curtailment between Thottumukkam-Mukkam (via) Valillapuzha will not adversely affect the travelling public since the change is not peak time and the trip curtailing portion is comparatively well served.  Clause 19 of the notified in No 42/2009 is not violated

26

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

 The total distance of variation is 22.8 km. 3. We have re-considered the application and verified connected files and reports in detail. However we strongly feel that there are violations of Section 80 (3) and KMVR 145 (6) & (7). We have also examined the provisions contained in Rule 145 (6) of Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules 1989, which deals with the variation of permit conditions. This Rule enables this authority to decide on the nature of action to be taken an application for variation; obviously any of the conditions stipulated in this Rule are applicable to this application. 4. Further, we have considered this application as per the provisions contained in Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules 145 (7) which describes how this authority has to consider an application for variation and/or change in existing timing schedule, namely i) Need for Provision of additional facilities or for revision of existing timings in the interest of public ii) Special circumstances, such as changes in the railway timings, changes in the number of permits either on the route or on the sectors of the route, or variation of the routes. 5. The applicant has submitted as if his application for curtailment is as per the interest of public. However there is no statistical evidence and or there is no empirical evidence available before this authority to accept the claim of the applicant. This authority also considered the fact that the permit had been issued to the applicant by considering all these aspects which are mentioned by the applicant and at present, no special situation has aroused to curtail a portion of the route and/or change in existing timing schedule on the approved route. 6. The curtailment of portion of the route will normally create a disturbance in the smooth flow of stage carriages on this route. The timings settled and issued to the applicant, obviously after considering the time gap on the route and convening a timing conference. If the requested changes have been made, definitely this will travelling public and ultimately result in putting obstacle on the benefits enjoyed by the regular passengers. 7. The Regional Transport Authority is the statutory authority constituted for the consideration of applications in accordance with Motor Vehicles Act and Rules made there under and also for the interest of the travelling public. 8. However a detailed and objective enquiry report on the above aspects is highly essential for taking a right approach on this application. Hence, in the light of the facts and circumstances explained above, the Secretary, RTA will conduct another enquiry with an officer not below the rank of a Joint Regional Transport Officer and place this application before this authority. Hence decision on this application is adjourned. Item No.32 Heard. 1. This is to consider the application for variation of permit in respect of the Stage Carriage KL 05 U 6724 on the route Kuttippuram R S - Paruthikadavu via Chembikkal,

27

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

Navamukunda Temple, Kodakkal, Panchami, Tirur, Peruvazhiyambalam, Devadar H S Tanur, Mukkola, and Angadi & Athanikkal Halt At Kuttippuram As O S. Regular Permit 10/814 /2002 valid up to 15/04/2022. The permit holder applied for i) extension of service from Anangadi to Chaliyam a distance of 5 kms. ii) extension of service from Pookkayil to Tanur (via) Unniyal and iii) curtailment of 4 single trips between Kuttippuram-Tirur and iv) curtailment of 4 single trips between Anangadi to Paruthikkad and v) Change of halting place from Kuttippuram to Tanur 2. The application was enquired through MVI of SRTO Thirurangadi and he has reported that  Extension from Pookkayil to Tanur (via) Unniyal will be beneficial to the travelling public since the portion is ill served and further extension from Anangadi to Chaliyam also will be advantage to the travelling public  Curtailment of 4 single trips between Kuttippuram-Tirur will not adversely affect the travelling public since the change is not in peak time and the curtailing portion is comparatively well served.  Clause 19 of the notified in No 42/2009 is not violated  Extension from Anangadi to Chaliyam is in district (6.4km) and from Pookayil to Tanur (via) Unniyal is in Malappuram district(11.3 km) which is within the permissible limit. The total distance of variation is 17.7 km.  Total variation did not violating the section 80(3) 3. We have re-considered the application and verified connected files and reports in detail. However we strongly feel that there are violations of Section 80 (3) and KMVR 145 (6) & (7). The report of the Enquiry Officer has not mentioning about the requested change in halting place, which is a clear violation of the Section in Motor Vehicles Act. Further he has mentioned about ‘comparatively well-served’; however no statistical evidence has produced before this authority to feel that the addition will be overweighed to curtailment. We have also examined the provisions contained in Rule 145 (6) of Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules 1989, which deals with the variation of permit conditions. This Rule enables this authority to decide on the nature of action to be taken an application for variation; obviously any of the conditions stipulated in this Rule are applicable to this application. 4. Further, we have considered this application as per the provisions contained in Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules 145 (7) which describes how this authority has to consider an application for variation and/or change in existing timing schedule, namely i) Need for Provision of additional facilities or for revision of existing timings in the interest of public

28

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

ii) Special circumstances, such as changes in the railway timings, changes in the number of permits either on the route or on the sectors of the route, or variation of the routes. 5. The applicant has submitted as if his application for curtailment is as per the interest of public. However there is no statistical evidence and or there is no empirical evidence available before this authority to accept the claim of the applicant. This authority also considered the fact that the permit had been issued to the applicant by considering all these aspects which are mentioned by the applicant and at present, no special situation has aroused to curtail a portion of the route and/or change in existing timing schedule on the approved route. 6. The curtailment of portion of the route will normally create a disturbance in the smooth flow of stage carriages on this route. The timings settled and issued to the applicant, obviously after considering the time gap on the route and convening a timing conference. If the requested changes have been made, definitely this will travelling public and ultimately result in putting obstacle on the benefits enjoyed by the regular passengers. 7. The Regional Transport Authority is the statutory authority constituted for the consideration of applications in accordance with Motor Vehicles Act and Rules made there under and also for the interest of the travelling public. 8. However a detailed and objective enquiry report on the above aspects is highly essential for taking a right approach on this application. The Secretary RTA will file a detailed statement of explanation from the respective Enquiry Officer on the context in which he has reported the mentioned findings without considering the relevant Sections and Rules of Motor Vehicles Act and Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. Hence, in the light of the facts and circumstances explained above, the Secretary, RTA will conduct another enquiry with an officer not below the rank of a Joint Regional Transport Officer and place this application before this authority. Hence decision on this application is adjourned. Item No.33 Heard. 1. This is to peruse the Judgments received from the Hon. STAT in M.V.A.A No 343/2018 dtd 17.04.2019 to re-consider the application for variation of regular permit which was previously rejected by RTA 21.05.2015 vide item No 72; RTA 30.05.2017 vide item No. 32 and RTA 25.09.2018 vide item No 32 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 and Kottakkal as ordinary service. Regular permit 10/104/1999 valid up to 10.03.2019. 2. The permit holder applied for variation of permit so as to provide additional trip Malappuram to Manjeri via Irumbuzhi as extension of the 7th single trip and return single

29

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

trip from Manjeri to Malappuram touching Perimbalam by extending the route from Panayi to Perimbalam on the existing route without curtailment. 3. The application was initially considered by this authority held on 21.05.2015 vide item No. 72 and rejected the same with following remarks:  There is vehement objection from KSRTC against this application for variation pointing out that the proposed route objectionably overlaps with notified sector.  As per the report of the enquiry officer, there is overlapping on notified sector from Collector’s Bungalow to Malappuram Junction (1Km) with Palakkad- notified route vide GO(P) No 42/09/Trans dtd 14.07.09. As per clause 19 of the notification, the right to operate any new service and to increase the trips in the notified routes or its portion will be reserved exclusively for the STU’s. 4. Against the rejection, on 25.01.2017 the permit holder submitted the Judgment from Hon. STAT in MVAA No. 206 of 2015 dtd 31.12.16; in which Hon. STAT has set aside the decision of this authority and the application was remanded back to this authority with a direction to re-consider the same. 5. On 23.03.2017 the permit holder applied for 4 month Temporary permit U/S 87(1)c for extending the halting trip from Malappuram to Manjeri with a judgment from Hon. High Court of Kerala in WP(C) No 12165 of 2017 dtd 06.04.2017 with a direction to take a decision on the application for temporary permit and grant the permit sought by the petitioner, if there is no impediment. The matter was enquired through MVI Malappuram and as per the report, there is overlapping in Malappuram town from Collector’s bungalow jn to Malappuram town. 6. The matter was again placed before the RTA which held on 30.05.2017 vide Item No. 32 and further rejected the application as per the directions contained in notification G O (P) No. 8/2017/Tran Dtd. 23.03.2017. 7. On 05.05.2018 the Permit holder has produced another judgment from Hon. High Court of Kerala in WP(C) No. 33320 of 2017 dtd 15.03.2018 which directs this authority to re- consider the application in accordance with the provision of Section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. There is also a direction to hear State Transport undertaking before orders are passed. The matter was placed before RTA meeting held on 25.09.2018 vide item No 32 and further rejected with following remarks  This authority has considered the objections raised by the representatives 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 trips is through the notified sector from Moonampadi junction to Uphill Malappuram through Palakkad-Kozhikode road.

30

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

 Thus the objections raised were found sustainable and the application was rejected as per the provisions contained in G.O(P)No 42/2009/Trans. Dated 14.07.2009 and G.O(P)No.8/2017/Tran Dated 23.03.2017 7. Against this decision, the applicant approached Hon. STAT and vide judgment in M.V.A.A No 343/2018 dated 17/04/2019. Hon. STAT set aside the decision of this authority and directed to re-consider the application for variation. 8. The submission by the applicant before Hon. STAT that the traffic regulation for stage carriages through in front of Collector’s bungalow in Malappuram town is only up to 7.30 p.m. and his proposed timing is at 8.19 p.m. and hence he will traverse his service in such a way that he will not enter into the notified portion. We have examined the submission of the applicant and could not observe any factual evidence for his claim that the traffic regulation for stage carriages in Malappuram town is up to 7.30 p.m., and hence overruled. The matter was placed before RTA meeting held on 10/07/2019 vide Supplementary item No 3. There is vehement objection from the other en-route operators that they could not study the supplementary agenda and needs to be adjourned. 9. We have re-considered the application and verified connected files and reports in detail. However we strongly feel that there are violations of Section 80 (3) and KMVR 145 (6) & (7). The report of the Enquiry Officer has not mentioning about the requested change in halting place, which is a clear violation of the Section in Motor Vehicles Act. We have also examined the provisions contained in Rule 145 (6) of Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules 1989, which deals with the variation of permit conditions. This Rule enables this authority to decide on the nature of action to be taken an application for variation; obviously any of the conditions stipulated in this Rule are applicable to this application. 10. Further, we have considered this application as per the provisions contained in Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules 145 (7) which describes how this authority has to consider an application for variation and/or change in existing timing schedule, namely i) Need for Provision of additional facilities or for revision of existing timings in the interest of public ii) Special circumstances, such as changes in the railway timings, changes in the number of permits either on the route or on the sectors of the route, or variation of the routes. 5. The applicant has submitted as if his application for curtailment is as per the interest of public. However there is no statistical evidence and or there is no empirical evidence available before this authority to accept the claim of the applicant. This authority also considered the fact that the permit had been issued to the applicant by considering all these aspects which are mentioned by the applicant and at present, no special situation has aroused to curtail a portion of the route and/or change in existing timing schedule on the approved route.

31

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

6. The Regional Transport Authority is the statutory authority constituted for the consideration of applications in accordance with Motor Vehicles Act and Rules made there under and also for the interest of the travelling public. 7. We have also considered the objections raised by the KSRTC and other en-route operators. There is vehement objection that the proposed route overlaps with notified route and in an objectionable manner. We have again verified the report of the enquiry officer and it is evident that the proposed route overlaps with notified portion objectionably. Thus we are of the common view that as per G.O (P) No 42/2009/Trans. Dated 14.07.2009 and G.O(P)No.8/2017/Tran Dated 23.03.2017, the overlapping is objectionable. 8. Thus, we are agreeing with the observations and findings of the route enquiry officer, the representative of KSRTC and also the objections raised by other en-route operators. We have also considered the provisions given under relevant Sections and Rules framed there under, especially Section 80(3); KMVRs 145 (6) and (7). We could not find anything substantial to allow the requested variation by the permit holder. 9. Thus, the application for variation submitted by the permit holder of the stage carriage KL 08 AS 7281 is re-considered in the light of the observations made by the Hon. Appellate Tribunal and rejected. Item No.34 Heard. This is to consider the application for variation of permit in respect of the Stage Carriage KL 11 Y 8199 on the route Nilambur-Nellikkuth via ChandakkunnuKarulai, Palankara, Karappuram, Pookottumpadam, Wandoor & Cherupuzha. Regular Permit 10/761/2016 valid upto 15-02-2021. The permit holder applied for one additional trip between Karappuram - Kalkkulam for a distance of 2.5 km. This was enquired through Motor Vehicle Inspector Nilambur and he has reported that this permit is allowed in the year 2016 and this is an application for additional trip for a distance of 2.5 Kilometer in the existing route. There is an over lapping of 2.2 km in Vazhikkzdzvu –Kozhikkode notified route from Nilambur to Chandakkunnu, however notified route is not overlapping on the variation sought portion. He has further reported that there is no curtailment; no changes in existing timings or halting place. As per the report, this variation is beneficial for travelling public and students. Thus, we are of the common opinion that the requested extension will be beneficial for the interest of travelling public and the same is granted subject to settlement of timings. The applicant is directed to produce the current records of the stage carriage within 30 days of communication of this decision otherwise the decision will be revoked without further notice.

32

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

Item No.35 Heard. 1. This is to re-consider the application in respect of the Stage Carriage KL 10 N 7984 for variation of permit, which was adjourned for detailed report in the RTA meeting of 10.07.2019 vide item No.92, on the route Kolathur-Muthukurssi via Palachode, Medical College, Angadippuram, Perinthalmanna, Cherukara Railway gate, Parakkalmukku, Kunnakav, MattayiKshethram. Regular Permit 10/51/2004 expired on 12-01-2019. The permit holder has applied for regular variation on the route so as to i) provide extension from Muthukurssi to Palathole via Kunnakkavu High School, Chemmattappad Road, Kallikkad, (2 single trips) and ii) extension from Perinthalmanna to Kakooth via Manathumangalm bye pass on the existing route without curtailment. 2. This was enquired by the Motor Vehicle Inspector of SRTO Perinthalmanna. As per the report, there is no route or trip curtailment, the extension sought for is beneficial for travelling public and students. The proposed variation is for 8.2 Km. No change in halting place. Rule 80(3) of motor vehicle act is not violating. No notified sector is overlapping on the variation sought part of the route and there is no additional trip through the notified portion and thus no violation of clause 19 of GO (p) No.8/2017/tran dtd 23/03/2017. 3. The application was considered by this authority held on 10.07.2019 vide item No.92 and the decision was adjourned for want of a detailed report on the need for such a variation. 4. The matter was re-enquired through MVI Printhalmanna and as per the report  There is no bus service from Muthukurssi to Palathol (via) Chemmattappadi Road Kallikkad 3.75 km is virgin portion. The applicant has submitted a copy of the road fitness certificate.  There is only four trips to Kakkooth from Perinthalmanna via Manathmangalam by- pass. Kakkooth is an ill-served interior place near Perinthalmanna.  This variation without curtailment is beneficial to the travelling public and students of interior areas and the variation will not affect the existing operators. We have also considered the representations given by various organizations and Institutions favoring the proposed variation. Thus, we are of the common opinion that the requested extension will be beneficial for the interest of travelling public and the same is granted subject to settlement of timings and also subject to fixation of fare stages for the virgin portion, if required. The fare stages proposed by the Motor Vehicle Inspector has to be published in the notice board seeking objections from public before finalisation. The applicant is directed to produce the current records of the stage carriage within 30 days of communication of this decision otherwise the decision will be revoked without further notice.

33

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

Item No.36 Heard. 1. This is to reconsider the application for variation of permit in respect of the stage carriage KL 55 V 7911, which was adjourned by this authority held on 10.07.2019 vide supplementary item No.4, on the route Malappuram – Tanur touching Chemmad and Kannathparamba via Valiyad – Chappanangadi – Kottakkal – Venniyur – Theyyala – Kunnathparamba via Kakkad and Chemmad with Malappuram – Chettipparamba one trip during night via Vadakkemanna as ordinary service. Regular Permit 10/630/2001 valid up to 06-02-2021. The permit holder applied for i) extension of the route to Kadampuzha from Kottakkal via Kottappadi, Poozhikkunnu, Aalikkalikkal, Kuttippuram, Mullammada, Randathani, Aattupuram, Chelakuth, Moorkkanad and AC Nariparamba (2 single trip in the morning) and ii) by providing trip from Malappuram to Kadampuzha via Valiyad with iii) extension from Vattaparamba to Kadampuzha via Kottappuram, Maravattam Junction and Anakuzhiyal and iv) Time changes on the existing regular route without curtailment 2. This was enquired through MVI, Sub-RT Office Tirur and he has reported that  length of permit is 69.6km and variation is for 27.3 km.  There are objectionable overlapping of 15.5 Km as per notification No GO (MS) 209/67/PW DTD 07-10-1967 (-Kozhikkode Scheme)on the existing route  There is further an overlapping of 1.6 Km is on Palakkad- Kannur route as per notification No.61049/TA4/PW DTD 13/11/1962.  The proposed variation overlapping 1 km from Mullanmada to Randathani on Kottayam – Kozhikkode scheme (No GO (MS) 209/67/PW DTD 07-10-1967 )  No virgin portions and the permit is intra-district.  The extension will be beneficial for the travelling public and students but timing changes will adversely affect . 3. We have considered the application and verified connected files and reports in detail. However we strongly feel that there are violations of Section 80 (3) and KMVR 145 (6) & (7). The report of the Enquiry Officer has not considered the fact that with this variation the characteristics of the entire route. Entire time schedule has been changed. There are clear violations of the Sections in Motor Vehicles Act. We are expressing our dissatisfaction on the report and we are of the common opinion that the same is not reliable. 4. We have also examined the provisions contained in Rule 145 (6) of Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules 1989, which deals with the variation of permit conditions. This Rule enables this authority to decide on the nature of action to be taken an application for variation; obviously any of the conditions stipulated in this Rule are applicable to this application. 5. Further, we have considered this application as per the provisions contained in Kerala

34

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

Motor Vehicles Rules 145 (7) which describes how this authority has to consider an application for variation and/or change in existing timing schedule, namely i) Need for Provision of additional facilities or for revision of existing timings in the interest of public ii) Special circumstances, such as changes in the railway timings, changes in the number of permits either on the route or on the sectors of the route, or variation of the routes. 6. The applicant has submitted as if his application for extensions as per the interest of public. However there is no statistical evidence and or there is no empirical evidence available before this authority to accept the claim of the applicant. This authority also considered the fact that the permit had been issued to the applicant by considering all these aspects which are mentioned by the applicant and at present, no special situation has aroused to curtail a portion of the route and/or change in existing timing schedule on the approved route. 7. The change in portion of the route and change in timings will normally create a disturbance in the smooth flow of stage carriages on this route. The timings settled and issued to the applicant, obviously after considering the time gap on the route and convening a timing conference. If the requested changes have been made, definitely this will affect travelling public and ultimately result in putting obstacle on the benefits enjoyed by the regular passengers. 8. The Regional Transport Authority is the statutory authority constituted for the consideration of applications in accordance with Motor Vehicles Act and Rules made there under and also for the interest of the travelling public. 9. However a detailed and objective enquiry report on the above aspects is highly essential for taking a right approach on this application. The Secretary RTA will file a detailed statement of explanation from the respective Enquiry Officer on the context in which he has reported the mentioned findings without considering the relevant Sections and Rules of Motor Vehicles Act and Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. 10.Hence, in the light of the facts and circumstances explained above, the Secretary, RTA will conduct another enquiry with an officer not below the rank of a Joint Regional Transport Officer and place this application before this authority. Hence decision on this application is adjourned. Item No.37 Heard. 1. This is to consider the application for variation of permit in respect of the Stage Carriage KL 10 Q 9881 on the route Parappanangadi – Feroke, Kadalundi, Chelari, Pandimuttam via Chemmad, Alinchuvad, KunnathParamb, Kundankadav Paalm, Thayyilpadi, Ullanam. Regular Permit 10/2354/2018 valid upto 29-05-2023.The permit holder applied for variation of exisisting permit

35

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

i) for re-arrangement of trips on the existing route Parappanangadi- Feroke (touching Kadalundi 4 single trips and Chelari 2 single trips and pandimuttam 2 single trips) without curtailment. 2. This was enquired through MVI Tirurangadi and he has reported that  this application is for re arranging some trips and timings in the existing route.  no virgin portions or curtailments.  there are standing passengers in the morning and evening trips in the route.  no violation of motor vehicle act 80(3).No violation of clause 19 of GO (P) No.8/2017/tran dtd 23/03/2017.  Proposed variation will be beneficial for travelling public and students 3. We have considered the application and verified connected files and reports in detail. However we strongly feel that there are violations of Section 80 (3) and KMVR 145 (6) & (7). The report of the Enquiry Officer has not considered the fact that with this variation the characteristics of the entire route. Entire time schedule has been changed. There are clear violations of the Sections in Motor Vehicles Act. 4. We have also examined the provisions contained in Rule 145 (6) of Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules 1989, which deals with the variation of permit conditions. This Rule enables this authority to decide on the nature of action to be taken an application for variation; obviously any of the conditions stipulated in this Rule are applicable to this application. 5. Further, we have considered this application as per the provisions contained in Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules 145 (7) which describes how this authority has to consider an application for variation and/or change in existing timing schedule, namely i) Need for Provision of additional facilities or for revision of existing timings in the interest of public ii) Special circumstances, such as changes in the railway timings, changes in the number of permits either on the route or on the sectors of the route, or variation of the routes. 6. The applicant has submitted as if his application for extensions as per the interest of public. However there is no statistical evidence and or there is no empirical evidence available before this authority to accept the claim of the applicant. This authority also considered the fact that the permit had been issued to the applicant by considering all these aspects which are mentioned by the applicant and at present, no special situation has aroused to curtail a portion of the route and/or change in existing timing schedule on the approved route. 7. The change in portion of the route and change in timings will normally create a disturbance in the smooth flow of stage carriages on this route. The timings settled and issued to the applicant, obviously after considering the time gap on the route and convening a timing conference. If the requested changes have been made, definitely this will affect

36

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

travelling public and ultimately result in putting obstacle on the benefits enjoyed by the regular passengers. 8. The Regional Transport Authority is the statutory authority constituted for the consideration of applications in accordance with Motor Vehicles Act and Rules made there under and also for the interest of the travelling public. 9. However a detailed and objective enquiry report on the above aspects is highly essential for taking a right approach on this application. The Secretary RTA will file a detailed statement of explanation from the respective Enquiry Officer on the context in which he has reported the mentioned findings without considering the relevant Sections and Rules of Motor Vehicles Act and Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. 10.Hence, in the light of the facts and circumstances explained above, the Secretary, RTA will conduct another enquiry with an officer not below the rank of a Joint Regional Transport Officer and place this application before this authority. Hence decision on this application is adjourned. Item No.38 Heard. 1. This is to consider the application for variation of permit in respect of the Stage Carriage KL 10 X 9595 (Permit No.10/4607/2015) on the route Chalava School - Kambram via Moonadi, Chalava, Melattoor, Perinthalmanna, Anamangad and Thootha. The permit holder applied for i) additional trips Perinthalmanna - via Anamnagad and Thootha and ii) one single trip on Perinthalmanna-Chavala School via Melattur, Olappara, Anjilamgadi, Puliyakodepara and Moonadi with iii) one trip curtailment. 2. This was enquired through MVI Perinthalmanna and he has reported that Extension of service from Moonadi to Chlava School Padi is beneficial to travelling public since the portion is ill served and further extension from Thootha –Veettikkad Schoolpadi will be an advantage to the travelling public.The extension in Palakkad district is 15 kms which is in permissible limit.No violation of motor vehicle act 80(3). 3. We have considered the application and verified connected files and reports in detail. However we strongly feel that there are violations of Section 80 (3) and KMVR 145 (6) & (7). The report of the Enquiry Officer has not considered the fact that with this variation the characteristics of the entire route. Entire time schedule has been changed. There are clear violations of the Sections in Motor Vehicles Act. 4. We have also examined the provisions contained in Rule 145 (6) of Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules 1989, which deals with the variation of permit conditions. This Rule enables this authority to decide on the nature of action to be taken an application for variation; obviously any of the conditions stipulated in this Rule are applicable to this application. 5. Further, we have considered this application as per the provisions contained in Kerala

37

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

Motor Vehicles Rules 145 (7) which describes how this authority has to consider an application for variation and/or change in existing timing schedule, namely i) Need for Provision of additional facilities or for revision of existing timings in the interest of public ii) Special circumstances, such as changes in the railway timings, changes in the number of permits either on the route or on the sectors of the route, or variation of the routes. 6. The applicant has submitted as if his application for extensions as per the interest of public. However there is no statistical evidence and or there is no empirical evidence available before this authority to accept the claim of the applicant. This authority also considered the fact that the permit had been issued to the applicant by considering all these aspects which are mentioned by the applicant and at present, no special situation has aroused to curtail a portion of the route and/or change in existing timing schedule on the approved route. 7. The change in portion of the route and change in timings will normally create a disturbance in the smooth flow of stage carriages on this route. The timings settled and issued to the applicant, obviously after considering the time gap on the route and convening a timing conference. If the requested changes have been made, definitely this will affect travelling public and ultimately result in putting obstacle on the benefits enjoyed by the regular passengers. 8. The Regional Transport Authority is the statutory authority constituted for the consideration of applications in accordance with Motor Vehicles Act and Rules made there under and also for the interest of the travelling public. 9. However a detailed and objective enquiry report on the above aspects is highly essential for taking a right approach on this application. The Secretary RTA will file a detailed statement of explanation from the respective Enquiry Officer on the context in which he has reported the mentioned findings without considering the relevant Sections and Rules of Motor Vehicles Act and Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. 10.Hence, in the light of the facts and circumstances explained above, the Secretary, RTA will conduct another enquiry with an officer not below the rank of a Joint Regional Transport Officer and place this application before this authority. Hence decision on this application is adjourned. Item No.39 Heard. 1. This is to consider the application for renewal of inter-district stage carriage permit in respect of the stage carriage, KL 56 L 2891, and regular variation for the conversion of permit as Limited Stop Ordinary Service (hereafter LSOS), operating on the route, Kozhikode-Ernakulam South via. Ramanattukara, Changuvetty, Kuttippuram, , , , , , Varapuzha new bridge as

38

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

Superfast, vide Permit No. 10/76/1996/M, which was valid from 19.06.2011 to 18.06.2016; for further period of five years. 2. The application for renewal of stage carriage permit was received by this authority on 06.02.2016. He has also submitted an application for regular variation for the conversion of permit as LSOS. Thus the application submitted was in time and it is in order. 3. Since the route is in inter-district, the matter was placed before this authority in our sitting held on 11.07.2016 as item No. 120. The R.T.A., adjourned the matter allowing the Secretary, R.T.A. to seek concurrence from sister RTAs having jurisdiction of more than 20 Kilometers. Further, the RTA ratified the issued Temporary Permit and directed to issue further temporary permit u/s 87(1) d of Motor Vehicles Act for durations of 4 months to continue the service as LSOS. Temporary permits have been issued continuously and as per records the present temporary permit expired on 11.10.2019. Concurrence was obtained from Sister RTA, . However the same from Sister RTA Ernakulam is pending for consideration. However the Secretary, RTA has obtained route enquiry reports from the Secretary of Sister RTAs, Kozhikkode, Thrissur and Ernakulam. The total route length as per the reports were 198.5 Kms. 4. We have verified the application and the reports of the route enquiry officers in detail. We have also verified the connected records, provisions contained in respective Sections and Rules in Motor Vehicles Act and Rules therein. We have also referred various Government Orders and connected Judgments of Hon. High Court of Kerala in this regard. 5. The route of this expired permit is Kozhikkode – Ernakulam South and the class of service was LSFP; as per the notified routes published by GO(P) No.42/2009/Tran dtd 14/07/2009 and further modified scheme vide GO(P) No.08/2017/Tran dtd 23/03/2017 Clause 5 (b) of the notification reads as follows: The existing and operating permits as on 14th July 2009 will be permitted to operate as Ordinary or Ordinary Limited Stop Service. As per Clause 5 (c) of the above notification, existing and operating permits in private sector as on 14th July 2009 are only allowed to operate further. Also, as per G.O. (P) No. 73/2013/Tran dated 16.07.2013 issued under No. 555/2013 Government approved a scheme specifying that higher class services like LSFP should be run and operated by the Statue Transport Undertaking. As per G.O. (MS) No. 45/2015/Trans; Dtd. 20.08.2015, there is a direction to Regional Transport Authorities to issue Ordinary Limited Stop Services to those private stage carriages which had been operated as super class services. Hence the application of the permit holder to vary the class of vehicle from LSFP to LSOS can be considered.

39

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

Thus, we are considering the application of this permit on the above said route as an Ordinary Service with limited number of stops as requested by the applicant and approved by this authority. In short the service can be considered as an ordinary service. 6. In this connection, we have also considered the Judgment of Hon High Court of Kerala in WP(C) No. 10563 of 2017; as per Clause 16 of the aforesaid Judgment of Hon. Division Bench, has quashed clause of 4 of the notification published as per vide GO(P) No.08/2017/Tran dtd 23/03/2017. Hence what prevailing is the same clause in its previous scheme, that is, GO (P) No.42/2009/Tran dtd 14/07/2009. This reads: 4. Whether the services Yes, permits issued in the private sector on or before 09-05- are to be operated by the 2006 will be allowed to continue till the dates of expiry of the State Transport respective permits. Thereafter regular permits will be Undertaking to the granted to them. When the State Transport Undertaking exclusion of other persons applies for introducing new services in the above routes, or otherwise: corresponding number of existing private stage carriage permits in the said routes whose permits expire first after filling application by the State Transport Undertaking shall not be renewed. As regards permits issued after 09.05.2006 temporary permits alone shall be issued afresh on expiry in these routes or any portion thereof till such time the State Transport Undertaking replaces with new services. The decision of the State Transport Undertaking to apply for permits to replace the existing Stage Carriages as above shall be taken by the Chief Executive of the State Transport Undertaking.

7. We have also verified clause 18 of the aforesaid Judgment, which reads: “Such being the case, the draft amendment introduced, for the first time, a definition of Ordinary Limited Stop Service in the Rules. Although the definition contained in the draft notification did not stipulate a maximum distance, it is difficult to conceive of any objection that a private operator could have raised against the introduction of a new class of service for the first time. Similarly, the private operators could not have insisted that the OLS service that was being introduced, had to be one without any stipulation as to maximum distance for that would tantamount to dictating a policy to the State Government. Under the circumstances, we cannot accept the contention urged on behalf of the petitioners that in introducing a stipulation as regards maximum distance, while finalizing the draft Rules, the State Government had breached the statutory procedure. This clearly shows that Hon. Division Bench of high Court of Kerala has upheld the amendment in KMVRs, Rule 2 o (a). Now we have also verified the Rule 2 o (a) of KMVR; it reads:

40

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

Ordinary Service means a service, which is operated on a route having a distance of not more than 140 Kms. with one or more stops in every fare stage. Since the permit lies in the category of ordinary service we are of the opinion that Rule 2 o (a) of KMVRs is applicable to this permit. 8. Thus a combined reading of the above mentioned notifications and Judgments we concluded that: a) Variation in class of service of the above permit from LSFP to LSOS is allowed. b) Renewal of permit application can only considered as per Rule 2 o (a) of Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. Thus, renewal of permit cannot be granted to a private service stage carriage permit beyond a total route length of 140 Kms. However the above mentioned Govt. orders has given a privilege to the operator to modify his permit application in such a way that the maximum distance should not increase 140 Kms. Hence we are giving that privilege to the operator to limit the total distance of his service to 140 Kms. and re-submit the application for renewal before this authority, with list of indented stops in such a way that there should be at least one stop in every fare stage. After obtaining the revised proposal as mentioned above, the Secretary, RTA will issue temporary permit of four month duration till such a final decision on this renewal application will be arrived at by this authority. Hence the decision on the application for renewal is adjourned. Item No.40 Heard. 1. This is to consider the application for renewal of inter-district stage carriage permit in respect of the stage carriage, KL 18 J 4059, operating on the route, Kuttiadi – Thrissur via. , Kozhikkode, Feroke New Bridge, University, Kolappuram, Chankuvetty, (without touching Kottakkal Bus stand), Kuttippuram, Edappal, Kunnamkulam as Limited Stop Ordinary Service (LSOS), vide Permit No. 10/247/2000/M, which was valid from 24.03.2010 to 23.03.2015; for further period of five years. 2. The application for renewal of stage carriage permit was received by this authority on 06.11.2014. Thus the application submitted was in time and it is in order. 3. Since the route is in inter-district, the matter was placed before this authority in our sitting held on 04.02.2015 as item No. 42. This authority directed Secretary, R.T.A, to renew the permit or to seek concurrence from sister RTAs, Kozhikode and Thrissur after verifying route length in neighboring districts in accordance with the decision of STA Kerala held on 27.05.2014 as Item No. 21. Concurrence from RTA, Kozhikode and Thrissur are pending. Now, the vehicle is issued with temporary permit valid from 14.09.2019 to 13.01.2020, U/S 87(1) d of M.V. Act. In these circumstances, route enquiry reports were obtained from sister R.T.A.s of Thrissur, and Kozhikode and also from Mother R.T.O. On verification of the reports, it reveals that the total route length is 179 kms.

41

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

4. We have verified the application and the reports of the route enquiry officers in detail. We have also verified the connected records, provisions contained in respective Sections and Rules in Motor Vehicles Act and Rules therein. We have also referred various Government Orders and connected Judgments of Hon. High Court of Kerala in this regard. 5. The route of this expired permit is Kuttiyadi - Thrissur and the class of service was LSOS; as per the notified routes published by GO (P) No.42/2009/Tran dtd 14/07/2009 and further modified scheme vide GO(P) No.08/2017/Tran dtd 23/03/2017 Clause 5 (b) of the notification reads as follows: The existing and operating permits as on 14th July 2009 will be permitted to operate as Ordinary or Ordinary Limited Stop Service. As per Clause 5 (c) of the above notification, existing and operating permits in private sector as on 14th July 2009 are only allowed to operate further. Thus, we are considering the application of this permit on the above said route as an Ordinary Service with limited number of stops as requested by the applicant and approved by this authority. In short the service can be considered as an ordinary service. 6. In this connection, we have also considered the Judgment of Hon High Court of Kerala in WP(C) No. 10563 of 2017; as per Clause 16 of the aforesaid Judgment of Hon. Division Bench, has quashed clause of 4 of the notification published as per vide GO(P) No.08/2017/Tran dtd 23/03/2017. Hence what prevailing is the same clause in its previous scheme, that is, GO (P) No.42/2009/Tran dtd 14/07/2009. This reads: 4. Whether the services Yes, permits issued in the private sector on or before 09-05- are to be operated by the 2006 will be allowed to continue till the dates of expiry of the State Transport respective permits. Thereafter regular permits will be Undertaking to the granted to them. When the State Transport Undertaking exclusion of other persons applies for introducing new services in the above routes, or otherwise: corresponding number of existing private stage carriage permits in the said routes whose permits expire first after filling application by the State Transport Undertaking shall not be renewed. As regards permits issued after 09.05.2006 temporary permits alone shall be issued afresh on expiry in these routes or any portion thereof till such time the State Transport Undertaking replaces with new services. The decision of the State Transport Undertaking to apply for permits to replace the existing Stage Carriages as above shall be taken by the Chief Executive of the State Transport Undertaking.

7. We have also verified clause 18 of the aforesaid Judgment, which reads:

42

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

“Such being the case, the draft amendment introduced, for the first time, a definition of Ordinary Limited Stop Service in the Rules. Although the definition contained in the draft notification did not stipulate a maximum distance, it is difficult to conceive of any objection that a private operator could have raised against the introduction of a new class of service for the first time. Similarly, the private operators could not have insisted that the OLS service that was being introduced, had to be one without any stipulation as to maximum distance for that would tantamount to dictating a policy to the State Government. Under the circumstances, we cannot accept the contention urged on behalf of the petitioners that in introducing a stipulation as regards maximum distance, while finalizing the draft Rules, the State Government had breached the statutory procedure. This clearly shows that Hon. Division Bench of high Court of Kerala has upheld the amendment in KMVRs, Rule 2 o (a). Now we have also verified the Rule 2 o (a) of KMVR; it reads: Ordinary Service means a service, which is operated on a route having a distance of not more than 140 Kms. with one or more stops in every fare stage. Since the permit lies in the category of ordinary service we are of the opinion that Rule 2 o (a) of KMVRs is applicable to this permit. 8. Thus a combined reading of the above mentioned notifications and Judgments we concluded that: Renewal of permit application can only considered as per Rule 2 o (a) of Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. Thus, renewal of permit cannot be granted to a private service stage carriage permit beyond a total route length of 140 Kms. However the above mentioned Govt. orders has given a privilege to the operator to modify his permit application in such a way that the maximum distance should not increase 140 Kms. Hence we are giving that privilege to the operator to limit the total distance of his service to 140 Kms. and re-submit the application for renewal before this authority, with list of indented stops in such a way that there should be at least one stop in every fare stage. After obtaining the revised proposal as mentioned above, the Secretary, RTA will issue temporary permit of four month duration till such a final decision on this renewal application will be arrived at by this authority. Hence the decision on the application for renewal is adjourned. Item No.41 Heard. This is to consider the application for belated renewal of the inter-district permit in respect of the stage carriage, KL 10 AV 4545, operating on the route, Ramanattukara – via. Parammal, Azhinjillam, Karad and Kakkove vide Permit No. 10/773/2009/M, which was valid from 27.02.2014 to 26.02.2019, for further period of five years. (Now vehicle is issued with Temp. Permit for the period from 13.08.2019 to 12.12.2019.) The Permit holder applied for the renewal of the Permit for further period of 05 years, as on 19.07.2019, which was not in time. He has requested to condone the delay occurred in filing

43

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

the Renewal application stating that he could file the renewal application in time due to his illness. A medical certificate produced which states that he was unable to attend work from 15.02.2019 to15.03.2019. But application filed only on 19.07.2019. The permit holder has not filed application before the stipulated fifteen days before the expiry of permit. However we could not find any impediment to renew the permit for continuous operation on the proposed route. Hence delay is condoned by imposing a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for permit-less operation with a strict direction not to repeat such an offence in future and renewal of regular permit is granted subject to the clearance of Govt. dues and production of No-Objection Certificate from the financier, if applicable and also production of current records of the vehicle within 30 days of communication of decision. Item No.42 Heard. This is to consider the Application for Belated Renewal of the Inter district Permit in respect of the stage carriage, KL 10 AC 4116, operating on the route, Manjeri – Mannarkkad via Anakkayam, Mankada, Perinthalmanna, Karingallathani, Nattukal, Alanallur, Melattur, Pandikkad And Via Pattikkad, Kariyavattom And Vettathur vide Permit No. 10/6121/2001/M, which was valid from 30.08.2014 to 29.08.2019, for further period of five years. (Now vehicle is issued with Temporary Permit for the period from 30.08.2019 to 29.12.2019.) The Permit holder applied for the renewal of the Permit for further period of 05 years, as on 30.05.2019, which was in time. Since, a portion of the route lies under the jurisdiction of Sister R.T.A. Palakkad, route enquiry reports were obtained from R.T.A. Palkkad and Malappuram. The route length as per the above reports are as follows:- R.T.A Malappuram : 79.900kms.; R.T.A. Palakkad : 39.000kms. Total : 119.500kms. The permit holder filed application before the stipulated fifteen days before the expiry of permit. Hence renewal of regular permit is granted subject to the clearance of Govt. dues and production of No-Objection Certificate from the financier, if applicable. Item No.43 Heard. This is to consider 1. The renewal of the permit issued to the Stage Carriage, KL 55 4382, vide permit No.10/817/2004, which was valid from 22.06.2014 to 21.06.2019 and replaced to KL 57 Q 2497, for further period of 05 years. 2. The Belated application for the replacement of the above Permit to the later Model Stage Carriage, KL 09 AQ 9748.

44

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

We have considered the application and verified connected files in detail. The Secretary, RTA has submitted the following: The Stage Carriage, KL 55 4382 was covered by a valid Regular Permit valid from 22.06.2014 to 21.06.2019, on the route, Venniyur - Tirur. This permit was replaced to the Stage Carriage, KL 57 Q 2497, by way of Lease Agreement, which was valid from 21.01.2018 to 30.12.2018. The permit holder applied to renew the lease agreement on 28.02.2019, after the expiry of 02 months of the above lease agreement, and the permit was not live with effect from 31.12.2018. However, the Permit holder applied for the renewal of the permit as on 06.06.2019, stating that the above permit has validity up to 21.06.2019. But, the permit was not live on this date of renewal application, since Lease Agreement was not renewed and also, a clearance certificate was issued to the stage carriage, KL 55 4382. The applicant has not produced the new vehicle even at the time of renewal application, even till 16.07.2019, he could not produce a Stage Carriage KL 09 AQ 9748, registered in his name with a request to replace the permit to this vehicle. However on 16.07.2019 he has produced a new vehicle and placed a request to renew the above permit to the stage carriage KL 09 AQ 9748. In these circumstance, the registered owner of the leased vehicle, KL 27 Q 2497, Sri. Muhammed Ameer was heard on 30.07.2019, who has stated that the above lease agreement has been terminated and he has objection to replace the permit to the Stage Carriage, KL 09 AQ 9748. Also, the applicant, Sri. Aboobacker was heard on 02.08.2019, who has stated that the Lease agreement has been terminated with effect from 30.12.2018. 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. It would be relevant to consider Rule 152 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules also which says: Failure to use transport vehicle:- It shall be a condition of the permit of every transport vehicle (other than a private service vehicle permit) that the vehicle shall be so maintained as to be available for the service for which the permit was granted, for the entire period of currency of the permit and that the permit is liable to be suspended or cancelled, if the vehicle has not been used for the purpose for which the permit was granted, for any day in the case of a stage carriage unless a reserve bus duly authorised in this behalf has conducted substitute service in the place of the route-bus which defaulted service, and for a continuous period of fifteen days….’ Thus, Rule 152 would reveal that the stage carriage operator has to keep the vehicle available in a fit condition for operating on the routes without any break of service and in accordance with the permit conditions. In this case, the permit holder has intentionally stopped the service of the stage carriage for about 16 years without any prior intimation

45

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

and/or with a valid reason. Thus, this is a clear violation of the provisions of Rule 152 of KMVR 1989. This authority has considered the application and verified the connected documents in detail. The permit was expired when the vehicle attached to it is removed before its renewal. The renewal application has submitted in time however without a vehicle, the said application is not valid and maintainable and thus the permit is expired on 21.06.2019. This authority is of the view that there is no need to condone the delay occurred for replacing with a suitable vehicle and or renewing the permit to keep the permit alive. The intentional negligence from the part of the applicant has to be viewed with due seriousness. 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 21.06.2019 and the applicant is ceased to be a holder of a regular permit thereafter. However the vehicle was produced on 16.07.2019, after expiry of the permit. From the above facts and circumstances, the applications submitted by the petitioner for renewal was considered as per law and rejected. Item No.44 Heard. This is to consider the belated application for renewal of stage carriage permit (10/628/1999) valid up to 05.07.2019 in respect of stage carriage KL 10 R 7108 on the route of Wandoor-Mampad via Thangalpadi and Panthlingal and halt at Cherukode. The permit holder has not filed application before the stipulated fifteen days before the expiry of permit. However we could not find any impediment to renew the permit for continuous operation on the proposed route. Hence delay is condoned and renewal of regular permit is granted subject to the clearance of Govt. dues and production of No- Objection Certificate from the financier, if applicable. Item No.45 Heard. This is to consider the belated application for renewal of stage carriage permit (10/6156/1999) valid up to 08.04.2019 in respect of stage carriage KL 58 V 5020 on the route of Palakkad-Kozhikode via Mundur, Mannarghat, Perinthalmanna, Malappuram, Kondotty, Feroke new bridge as LSOS. The permit renewal application received from the above applicant on 28/03/2019. Enquiry report received from Palakkad and MVI ,Malappuram..As per the report of MVI,Palakkad,entire portion of route Palakkad to karingallathani via Mundur,Mannaghat overlaps with the notified route Palakkad-Kannur notified vide 61049/TA4/PW DT

46

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

13/11/1962 Gazette no 5 dtd 29/01/1963.Overlapping with notified routes/approved schemes in this jurisdiction is not objectionable in the case of renewal of existing permit.(Total route length-137.5 km,56.5 km in Palakkad district,64.5km in Malappuram Dist,16.5 km in Kozhikode dist). No departmental action is pending in Office. The permit holder has not filed application before the stipulated fifteen days before the expiry of permit. However we could not find any impediment to renew the permit for continuous operation on the proposed route. Hence delay is condoned and renewal of regular permit is granted subject to the clearance of Govt. dues and production of No- Objection Certificate from the financier, if applicable. Item No.46 Heard. This is to consider the belated application for renewal of stage carriage permit (10/837 /2001 ) valid up to 03.08.2019 in respect of stage carriage KL 10 AA 7345 on the route of Vengara - Kunnathuparamba touching Parappanangadi and Tirur with halt at Kakkad via Muthalamad, Adakkapuram , Kooriyad, Kakkad, Chemmad, Madachira, Pakkadapuraya, Kacheripadi, Kozhichena, Kainchapara, , Kuttipala, Chettiyankinar as ordinary service. The permit renewal application received from the above applicant on 19.09.2019 .The applicant has medical certificate for condone the delay. The permit holder has not filed application before the stipulated fifteen days before the expiry of permit. However we could not find any impediment to renew the permit for continuous operation on the proposed route. Hence delay is condoned by imposing a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for permit-less operation with a strict direction not to repeat such an offence in future and renewal of regular permit is granted subject to the clearance of Govt. dues and production of No-Objection Certificate from the financier, if applicable and also production of current records of the vehicle within 30 days of communication of decision. Item No.47 Heard. This is to consider the application for Renewal of the Inter district Permit in respect of the stage carriage, KL 54 C 7035 , operating on the route, Thrissur – Kozhikkode as LSOS; vide permit No. 10/534/1995/M, which was valid from 01.03.2014 to 28.02.2019, for further period of 05 years. (Now vehicle is issued with Temp. Permit for the period from 01.07.2019 to 31/10/2019.) The Permit holder applied for the renewal of the Permit for further period of 05 years, as on 22/11/2018, which was in time. Since, a portion of the route lies under the jurisdiction of R.T.a. Thrissur, route enquiry reports were obtained from R.T.A. Thrissur and route enquiry report was obtained for the portion lying under the jurisdiction of RTA Malappuram. The route length as per the above reports are as follows:- 1. R.T.A Malappuram : 89.00kms.

47

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

2. R.T.A. Kozhikode : 16.000kms. 3. R.T.A Thrissur : 35.00 Total :140.00 km. The permit holder filed application before the stipulated fifteen days before the expiry of permit. Hence renewal of regular permit is granted subject to the clearance of Govt. dues and production of No-Objection Certificate from the financier, if applicable. Item No.48 Heard. This is to consider the belated renewal of permit application submitted by the permit holder of the stage carriage KL 10 AV 8011 on 11-01-2019 to operate on the route Valiyaparamba - Feroke (inter district). The Permit -No.10/81/1999 was valid up to 22-01- 2019. The permit holder has not filed application before the stipulated fifteen days before the expiry of permit. However we could not find any impediment to renew the permit for continuous operation on the proposed route. Hence delay is condoned and renewal of regular permit is granted subject to the clearance of Govt. dues and production of No- Objection Certificate from the financier, if applicable. Item No.49 Heard. This is to consider the belated renewal of permit application submitted by the permit holder stage carriage KL 55 F 7833 on 31-05-2019 to operate on the route Malappuram- Kuttippuram. The Permit -No.10/821/1999 was valid up to 04-05-2019 The permit expired on 04-05-2019 but the renewal application was submitted only on 31-05-2019, which is after the expiry of the permit. The applicant was appeared for hearing on 22-06-2019 and stated that because of his illness he could not apply on time. The permit holder has not filed application before the stipulated fifteen days before the expiry of permit. However we could not find any impediment to renew the permit for continuous operation on the proposed route. Hence delay is condoned by imposing a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for permit-less operation with a strict direction not to repeat such an offence in future and renewal of regular permit is granted subject to the clearance of Govt. dues and production of No-Objection Certificate from the financier, if applicable and also production of current records of the vehicle within 30 days of communication of decision. Item No.50 Heard. This is to consider the belated renewal of permit application submitted by the permit holder of the stage carriage KL 10 R 8796 on 30-03-2019 to operate on the route Vettom Cheerp - Tirur. The Permit -No.10/816/1999 was valid up to 07-04-2019; but the renewal application was submitted only on 30-03-2019, which was not the required dates prior to

48

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

the expiry of the Permit. Notice sent to the applicant for a hearing but not attended. Regular permit issued in the year 1999 and it is an intra district permit. The permit holder has not filed application before the stipulated fifteen days before the expiry of permit. However we could not find any impediment to renew the permit for continuous operation on the proposed route. Hence delay is condoned and renewal of regular permit is granted subject to the clearance of Govt. dues and production of No- Objection Certificate from the financier, if applicable. Item No.51 Heard. This is to consider the application for replacement of the Stage Carriage KL 12 D 8199 with has lesser seating capacity with regular permit of Stage Carriage KL 6 C 337 (10/538/00) valid up to 12.07.2000 on the route of Palapetty-Edappal via Puthuponnani, Ponnani Biyyam and Thuyyam as ordinary service. On 23.07.2019 permit holder has submitted an application for replacement of Vehicle with a lesser seating capacity Stage Carriage KL 12 D 8199. Both vehicles are owned by same person. Year of Mnfr of the incoming vehicle is 2009 and seating capacity is 33. And year of manufacture of the outgoing vehicle is 2003 and seating capacity is 48. Thus, the material difference between two vehicles is more than 25%. Right to replace the vehicle has been dealt with in Section 83 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which is quoted hereunder: Replacement of vehicles.- The holder of a permit may, with the permission of the authority by which the permit was granted, replace any vehicle covered by the permit by any other vehicle of the same nature. Rule 174 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 and the material portion thereof is sub-rule (2) and (3) which are quoted hereunder : 174. Permit-Replacement of vehicles – (2) Upon receipt of the application, the Transport Authority may in his discretion, reject the application- (b) if the new vehicle proposed differs in material respects from the old; or (3) If the new vehicle proposed does not differ in material respects from the old, the application for replacement of the vehicle may be allowed. If there is material difference between the two vehicles, the application shall be treated as if it were for a fresh permit. We have also referred the directions contained in the verdict of Hon. Division Bench of Hon. High Court of Kerala in WA Nos.1466 & 1470 of 2017 Thus, we have considered the application, verified connected records and files, also perused the connected portions of Law; perused the directions contained in the judgments of Hon. High Court of Kerala in WA Nos. 1466 and 1470 of 2017 & WP(C) No. 34342 of 2018; Dtd. 23.10.2018. Thus, we are of the opinion that the replacement application with material

49

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

difference with more than 25% need not be entertained. Hence the application for replacement is rejected. Item No.52 Heard. This is to consider the application for replacement of permit in respect of the stage carriage, KL 55 4007, operating on the route, Venniyur – Thirunavaya touching Kadampuzha via Kottackal, Puthanathani, Patternadakkavu As ordinary service, vide Permit No. 10/896/2001/M, which was valid from 04.10.2016 to 03.10.2021, to the stage Carriage bearing Registration mark as KL 40 B 6910, since material difference between these vehicles differ beyond 25%. The basic permit was issued to the Stage Carriage, KL 10 K 2529, with seating capacity 23 in all. But, the seating capacity of the vehicle, KL 40 B 6910, offered for replacement, is 33 in all. Hence, the material difference is beyond 25%. Since the material difference is higher than that of the primary vehicle, we are of the common opinion that the same will be beneficial for the travelling public. Thus the replacement is allowed as per law. Item No.53 Heard. This is to consider the application for Replacement of the Stage Carriage KL 51 D 5773 (2012 model) with regular permit of Stage Carriage KL 70 A 5454 (2014 model) permit no 10/512/97 valid up to 19.05.2022 on the route of Muthukurissi-Malappuram (via) Elamkulam, Cherukara, Perinthalmanna and Ramapuram. On 10.08.2018 permit holder has submitted an application for replacement of Vehicle with lesser model than its primary vehicle Stage Carriage KL 70 A 5454 .Both vehicles are owned by same person. Year of Manufacture of the incoming vehicle is 2012 and seating capacity is 33. And year of manufacture of the outgoing vehicle is 2014 and seating capacity is 28. On verification it is revealed that the model of the outgoing vehicle (KL 70 A 5454) in this regular permit was 2014. Incoming vehicle is lesser model than outgoing vehicle. We have considered the application in detail. The replacement is allowed subject to a feasibility report by an competent officer not below the rank of Motor Vehicles Inspector on the mechanical condition of the incoming vehicle. Item No.54 Heard. This is to consider the vehicle replacement application in respect of the Stage Carriage KL 11 Q 8424 (Permit No 610/2006 valid up to 01-04-2023) to KL 13 Z 639. (The permit was previously replaced in lease agreement) on the route Kozhikkode-Kalikavu Via Medical College –Karanthur-- REC Mukkam The lease agreement ended on 18-03-2019 and the permit holder purchased the leased vehicle and transferred to his name wef: 27-06-2019. In the situation of the permit holder

50

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

became the owner of the vehicle KL 13 Z 639 he has requested to allow the replacement of permit to this vehicle. Thus, replacement was allowed as per law. Item No.55 Heard. This is to peruse the 1.Complaint against Stage carriage carriages KL 55 6784,KL 55 A 6209, ,KL 10 X 2446,KL 17 D 477,KL 10 AE 854,KL 55 G 950,KL 10 X 2446 for trip curtailment. 2. Enquiry report from the Joint Regional Transport Officer, Tirur. Complaints received against the service of stage carriages bearing Registration Numbers KL 55 6784,KL 55 A 6209,KL 17 D 477,KL 10 AE 854,KL 55 G 950 and KL 10 X 2446 alleging that this vehicles are curtailing trips. Hence direction issued to Joint RTO, Tirur to watch the service of the stage carriages and submit the report. Consequently the vehicles were checked and check report prepared. SL No Reg No Check date place time 1 KL 17 D 477 25.06.2018 KAVILAKKAD 7.30 PM 2 KL 55 6784 29.06.2018 TIRUR BUSSTAND 3.30 PM 3 KL 55 A 6209 11.07.2018 TIRUR 4.00 PM 4 KL 55 A 6209 13.08.2018 PADINJANANGADI 2.03PM 5 KL 55 6784 14.08.2018 PAYYANANGADI 4.21 PM 6 KL 55 G 950 14.08.2018 BP ANGADI 9.05 PM 7 KL 12 D 8177 14.08.2018 9.20 PM 8 KL 10 X 2446 15.08.2018 BP ANGADI 8.20 PM 9 KL 10 AE 854 15.08.2018 THEKKUMURI 8.35 PM The permit owners of the stage carriage were heard by joint RTO, Tirur. They admitted that some days they are curtailing trips due to traffic blocks and/or mechanical complaints of the vehicle. Heard in the open hearing of this authority. As an initial step, we are imposing a fine of 10,000/- for each offense. The permit holders of each of these vehicles are directed to remit the amount within 15 days of communication of this decision. Further, the Secretary RTA, with his agency watch the service of these vehicles periodically and if there is repeated offenses by these stage carriages place a detailed report, after completing the procedure explained in Section 86 of Motor Vehicles Act. Item No.56 Heard. 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.57 Heard. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any.

51

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

Item No.58 Heard. 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.59 Heard. 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.60 Heard. 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.61 Heard. 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.62 Heard. 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.63 Heard. 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.64 Heard. 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.65 Heard. 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.66 Heard. 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.67 Heard. 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.68 Heard. 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.69 Heard. 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.70 Heard. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any.

52

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

Item No.71 Heard. 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.72 Heard. 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.73 Heard. 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.74 Heard. 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.75 Heard. 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.76 Heard. 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.77 Heard. 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.78 Heard. 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.79 Heard. 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.80 Heard. 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.81 Heard. 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.82 Heard. 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.83 Heard. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any.

53

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

Item No.84 Heard. 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.85 Heard. 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.86 Heard. 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 Heard. 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.88 Heard. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. This is to consider the application for changing the halting place in respect of A/R bearing Reg. No. KL 54 L 4292 from Veliyancode to Ponnani. The applicant is the registered owner in respect of A/R KL 54 L 4292 issued with a contract carriage permit halt at Veliyancode which is valid up to 22.05.2024. On 14.08.20019 the registered owner has applied for variation of halting place from Veliyancoe to Ponnani, before the Joint RTO, Ponnani. Accordingly the matter was enquired through the circle officer; He reported that there is not sufficient space for parking autorickshaws in Ponnani Town, the addition of permits will affect the space of existing permit holders. In the above circumstance, the Joint Regional Transport Officer Ponnani has forwarded the application for variation of permit to Regional Transport Officer, Malappuram for necessary action.

54

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

We have elaborately considered the application and the report of the enquiry officer. There is delegated power to the Additional Registering Authority, Ponnani to take a decision on this application and he could have been disposed the same without any further time delay. However, since the matter has been marked to us, this authority considered the application in its merits. The report of enquiry officer seems to be skeptical in nature and we cannot take a right approach on this application with the data available in the report. Additional Registering Authority, Ponnani has to be viewed this matter seriously and obtain a detailed enquiry report, specifying the details like  list of autorikshaw parking places within the municipal limits,  number of permits allowed in each of these stands,  any excess or deficit in number of permits (stand wise),  possibility of further authorikshaw parking stands in Ponnani Municipal limits,  letter from the Municipal authorities on the availability of parking places within Municipal limits,  details of entrance and exit of each of these autorikshaw stands (to explore further on the possibility of expansion)  photographs of autorikshaw stands with auto parking, Hearing note with the applicant by the Addl. Registering Authority on the need of requested variation and submit a detailed note with specific remark of the Addl Registering Authority on whether the application can be granted or not With the above mentioned reports and documents place the application before the next sitting of this authority without further delay. Hence decision on this application is adjourned. Item No.94 Heard. This is to re-consider the request the application for the grant of Agent’s license for the sale of tickets to the passengers of public service vehicles (Adjoined- additional item No.3 of RTA held on 25/09/2018 & RTA 01.02.2019 in Item 132) An application has been received for the grant of Agents license for the sale of tickets to the passengers of public service from Sri. C. Narendran Nair, Vivekanda Travels, Manjeri. A fee of Rs. 650/- has been remitted and DD for Rs. 5000/- has been submitted. After conducting enquiry as on enquiry of MVI, the application was placed before the RTA Malappuram held on 25/09/2018 Item No. 30 adjourned the decision on this application for want of a detailed report with specifications as per relevant portions of law. Motor Vehicles Inspector, Malappuram has submitted a report mentioning the following details:  The applicant was holding Agent license LAPT No. 1/1999 dtd 29/12/1999 issued by RTA Kozhikode

55

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

 The applicant is engaged in the public conveyance field on hired basis under the brand name of “Vivekananda Travels (P) Ltd."  The applicant is not the owner of any public service vehicle at present and he prefer to ply for hire with vehicle No’s KL 02 AZ 6969 (Sri. Anwar Thayyub, ), KL 02 AZ 6566 (Smt. Sabeena.U, Kollam ). KL 35 E 3133 (Sri. Jerin Raj, Kottayam.)  The records of the vehicle are verified and found correct as on date  Willingness to act as agent for the sale of tickets for travel in the referred vehicles were obtained in writing for a period of 3 years on contract basis.  The applicant authorized Smt. Prameela Devi, W/o. Sreenivasa Panikkar to conduct the business on his behalf as an agent for the sale of tickets at the address cited as building No. 20/1205/A, Court Road, Manjeri, Malappuram Pin 676121, Phone No. 04832760161.  The authorized person Smt. Prameela Devi, W/o. Sreenivasa Panikar is holding valid license No. 164/Iac dated 01/04/2018 for the said business from Manjeri Muncipality.  The Establishment is seen registered under the companies’ Act 1956 and availed certificate of incorporation at on 22/7/1999.  Retiring facilities and toilets arranged in the office. Parking arranged by the side of By-pass road nearby. The matter was further placed before this authority held on 01.02.2019 in Item No. 132 and adjourned the decision since the applicant was absent. Now as per the request placed by the applicant we reconsidered the application, verified the report of the route enquiry officer and also the documents submitted by the applicant. We have also verified the Section 93 of Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 193 of Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules formed there under. , Transport Department in a circular No. 74/B1/2019/Tran. Dtd. 26.04.2019 has issued guidelines for the issue of license in Form LAPT. As per Sub-Rule (8) of Rule 193 empowers Regional Transport Authority to grant such license on conditions as the RTA may consider fit to impose. Hence we elaborately considered the matter in the context of the above mentioned Section and Rules and also based on the circular issued by the Govt. of Kerala in the context of the recent issues relating to the safety of passengers in some buses operated by certain private operators. In order to have uniformity in conditions while issuing license in form LAPT Govt. of Kerala has suggested certain conditions to be observed by RTAs while issuing the LAPT license: I Booking Office 1. The office space should have a minimum of 150 square feet size with the following passenger facilities:

56

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

i) Customer Lounge with comfortable seating arrangements for at least 10 passengers including ladies ii) Toilet facilities within the premises iii) Cloak room with a locker facility iv) CCTV facility with back up data storage for up to six months v) Drinking water facility vi) Portable fire extinguisher (DCP – 5 Kgs) 2. Sufficient stopping space for the vehicle for boarding and alighting the passengers without disturbing the free flow of traffic and other road users 3. Parking space for at least 3 heavy passenger vehicles within a distance of 5 Kms 4. No booking office/parking place shall be within 500 meters from KSRTC/ moffusil bus stand. 5. The complaint redressal telephone numbers of the , the concerned RTO and the women helpline shall be exhibited in the office. 6. The licensee/operator shall have sufficient alternative arrangements of substitute vehicles in the case of any breakdown. 7. Age of the licensee : Minimum 18 years 8. The applicant should not have any criminal history; a police clearance certificate has to be obtained and submitted 9. The financial resource of the applicant should be sufficient to provide a sustainable service 10. The applicant should have adequate computer knowledge. We have considered these conditions and are of the opinion that the applicant for the LAPT license should have the above mentioned criteria. Thus, we are of the common view that a detailed enquiry on these aspects is required to take a right approach on this application. The Secretary RTA will conduct one more detailed enquiry and submit a report with his agency expeditiously and place before this authority. Hence decision on this application is adjourned. Item No.95 Heard. This is to consider the request of the Secretary, Melattur Grama Panchyath for sanctioning the bus stand constructed at Melattur. Secretary, Melattur Gramapanchayath has submitted that the Panchayath constructed a new bus stand and the same is ready for operation with an approval from this authority. An enquiry was conducted through the Joint Regional Transport Officer, Perinthalmanna and as per the report:  The proposed bus stand is situated in a very suitable place near to the Mannarkkad – Palakkad National Highway.

57

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

 Covered area for buses and separate parking place for buses with waiting status.  Adequate parking area for other vehicles  Adequate waiting facility for passengers and comfort facilities arranged  Approach roads are wide and with enough space for stage carriage transit.  It is highly beneficial to the public transport system and passengers  Newly constructed bus stand complies with the conditions laid down in KMVRs 344 (2) and (3) of 1989 Thus, as per the provisions stipulated in Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules 344, a preliminary sanction from this authority regarding the location of the bus stand could have to be taken by the respective Panchayath even before the construction of the bus stand. However, we have considered the report of the enquiry officer and based on the findings, sanction is accorded to already constructed bus stand at Melattur Grama Panchayath. As previously decided by this authority a separate room has to be earmarked for the enforcement wing of Motor Vehicles Department in the bus stand building. Item No.96 Heard. This is to consider the request of Perinthalmanna Municipality for the approval of a new bus stand (J N Road Bus stand) at Perintalmanna Municipality with a view to reduce the traffic congestion within city limit by optimum utlisation of bus stands and by-pass roads available in the city. The matter was enquired by the Joint Regional Transport Officer, Perinthalmanna and submitted a detailed report. a) Location & Access : The proposed Municipal Bus Stand cum Shopping Complex is on a plot measuring three acres belonging to Perintalmanna Municipality, located at the rear of the Municipal Office. The position of the bus stand is so that it is accessible to all travelling public. The bus stand is accessible to public coming for services to government offices such as Municipal office, Mini Civil Station, Courts, Police Station, Registrar Office, PWD Offices, Post Office, Telephone Exchange, Municipal Market etc. The proposal is to construct a temporary bus stand with bus bays, covered waiting areas and toilet facilities in the first stage and this facility will be used till the work on the proposed Municipal Bus Stand cum Shopping Complex is over b) Facilities proposed (work is in finishing stage) The bus stand has a proposed covered area of 60 sq.mt. The bus parking area can accommodate 15 buses which are on the commencement of journey in the covered area. Separate parking area has been proposed for other vehicles in the uncovered area. Adequate area measuring 40sq.mt. area is proposed with seats for the travelling public in the covered area. Comfort stations consisting of separate e-toilet blocks for gents and ladies

58

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

have been proposed. Provision for breast feeding mother and baby-child is also proposed .Facilities for other amenities like drinking water; Television, etc. are also proposed. Adequate road width has been provided at the entrance and exit of the proposed bus stand. As the proposed area for the Bus stand cum shopping Complex is on 3 acres of land, it will be spacious and no congestion shall be felt regarding the volume of buses using the bus stand. As per the discussion with the Municipal authorities, the maintenance of the bus stand is proposed to be arranged by the Municipal authorities .Proposal is also there for a Police Aid post, and arrangements for the regulation and safety of the vehicles parked c) Proposed Entry and Exit details There are two entry roads and one exit road of width 9 metres to the proposed bus stand for vehicles . A 5 metre wide walk way is proposed to the bus stand from the Kozhikode – Palakkad Road adjacent to the Perintalmanna Muncipality for easy access for public coming from Perintalmanna Town For buses coming from Cher lechery side and side on the Nilamboor – Perimbulavu State highway - entry is proposed through junction (near Hotel Sabrina) opposite the Mini Civil Station by 9 meter width road directly to the bus stand ( road work nearing completion). For buses returning back to Pattambi / Cherplechery side - exit is proposed from bus stand is through Jubilee road bye pass (6 metre road work progressing) For buses coming from Malapuram, Manjeri, , and Kottakkal – entry is proposed from Jubilee Road junction and exit through Aysha Comlex Junction through Jubilee road bye pass road (10 metre road widening work is progressing. Thus, as per the provisions stipulated in Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules 344, a preliminary sanction from this authority regarding the location of the bus stand could have to be taken by the respective Municipality even before the construction of the bus stand. However, we have considered the report of the enquiry officer and based on the finding in the report, initial sanction is accorded to the bus stand at Perinthalmanna (J N Road Bus Stand). However a work completion report has to be submitted by the Municipality to the Secretary, RTA and based on the same, he has to submit a report before this authority for final approval for the bus stand as per Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules 344. As previously decided by this authority a separate room has to be earmarked for the enforcement wing of Motor Vehicles Department in the bus stand building. Item No.97 Heard. This is to consider the request of Perinthalmanna Municipality for the approval of Tharayil bus stand at Perintalmanna Municipality with a view to reduce the traffic congestion within city limit by optimum utlisation of bus stands and by-pass roads available in the city.

59

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

The matter was enquired by the Joint Regional Transport Officer, Perinthalmanna and submitted a detailed report. Tharayil Bus stand situated on the Manuthamangalam Bye pass has the following facilities Total covered area : 1133 Sq.Mt. Total covered area for parking of buses : 560 sq.mt. accommodating 38 buses Open area for other vehicles parking : 1500 Sq.mt. Separate entry and exit having 3.5 width roads Public amenities like toilets, seating for passengers, televisions, drinking water facilities are provided Police Aid post, Security guard etc are also provided Adequete facilities are present in this Bus stand to accommodate the buses and public as per the changes proposed in the proposal of the Traffic regulatory Committee. Thus, as per the provisions stipulated in Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules 344, a preliminary sanction from this authority regarding the location of the bus stand could have to be taken by the respective Municipality even before the construction of the bus stand. However, we have considered the report of the enquiry officer and based on the findings, sanction is accorded to already constructed bus stand at As previously decided by this authority a separate room has to be earmarked for the enforcement wing of Motor Vehicles Department in the bus stand building. Item No.98 Heard. This is to consider the proposal for no-objection certificate for the construction of Bus Waiting Sheds in following locations and also for the approval of Bus Stops based on the letter given by Sri. T. A. Ahammed Kabeer, MLA, Mankada. 1. Palakkathadam at Mankada Panchayath 2. Kanjirappadi, Mankada 3. Panchayath Padi at Kadannamanna 4. Ullattilpadi, Vellila 5. Poozhikkunnu, Vallikkappatta 6. Thirurkad Junction 7. In-front of Block Panchayath Office, Ramapuram 8. Near to Govt. Higher Secondary School – Both sides – 2 Nos. An enquiry was conducted by the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Joint Regional Transport Office, Perinthalmanna and he has submitted a report on the same. As per the report these are suitable locations for the construction of Bus Waiting Shed. He has also recommended these spots for Bus Stops for Ordinary State carriages. Thus, sanction is accorded for bus stops in all the above mentioned locations and also allowed the request for the construction of bus waiting sheds in consultation with the

60

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

respective local self government institution, respective wing of public works department and with the concurrence of traffic regulatory committee. Item No.99 Heard. This is to consider the decisions of Traffic Regulatory Committee, Perinthalmanna Municipality held on 03.09.2019 on traffic regulations with respect to stage carriage operations in Perintalmanna Municipality with a view to reduce the traffic congestion within city limit by optimum utlisation of bus stands and by-pass roads available in the city. The matter was enquired by the Joint Regional Transport Officer, Perinthalmanna and submitted a detailed report. Present Scenario: There are three bus stands available in Perinthalmanna Municipality 1. Manazhi Bus stand 2. Tharayil Bus stand and 3. Jubilee Road Bus stand (newly constructed) Ever since the old bus stand which was situated at the centre of Perintalmanna town was demolished years back, a proper traffic management could not be done in the town limit. There is a bus stoppage in every 50 meters for picking up passengers on all the roads within city limits. Further proper utilization of the two bus stands namely Manazhi bus stand and Tharayil bus stand could not be done and bus bays were built on all roads creating road blocks in total. The travelling public have been suffering due to these unscientific traffic management system, and The town is having un-controllable road blocks in all times. The New Proposal The proposal recommended by the traffic regulatory committee has been studied and the following points are noted:  The proposal is to reduce the heavy traffic congestion in Perintalmanna Town by re- routing the buses entering into and exiting out of Perintalmanna town  The new proposal is based on optimum utilization of the two existing bus stands and the add new bus stand and also utlising the outer by-pass roads available in the city. Major Suggestions on the proposal and its analysis: 1. Buses coming from road direction Suggestion: All buses coming from Ooty road should turn right from Manuthamangalam junction and arrive at Tharayil Bus Stand, and return back the same way. Out of these, buses bound to Malapuram/Manjeri/Valanchery/Kottakkal side and Pattambi / Cherupulasseri side,

61

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

should proceed to Jubilee road Bus stand and proceed from there. Buses to Mannarkkad side should proceed through Kozhikode road, go through town and proceed touching Manazhi stand. KSRTC buses should turn left and proceed through Manuthumangalam bypass. Remarks: All buses from Nilambur/Karuvarankundu/Karulai shall be catered by Tharayil Stand. Traffic Congestion on Ooty road by buses from Manuthamangalam to Perintalmanna Centre will be avoided as these vehicles will not enter Perintalmanna town at all. 2. Buses coming from Mannarkad road direction Proposal: All long distance Palakkad - Kozhikode buses (including KSRTC)shall enter Manazhi stand and continue through town. All buses coming from Mannarkkad side shall enter Manazhi stand and come through town, arrive at Tharayil stand and return back the same way. Buses to Malapuram side and Pattambi/ Cherupulasseri side should come through town and proceed to J N Road stand. Buses to Ooty road side shall come through town and proceed to Tharayil stand. Remarks: Buses coming from Mannarkad side shall pass through town. As these are the only buses passing through town their services can be utilized as town buses by providing stops for them in town 3. Buses coming from Kozhikode road direction Proposal: All Kozhikode-Palakkad long distance buses (including KSRTC buses) from Malapuram /Manjeri /Valanchery /Kottakkal should turn left from Aysha Complex junction and arrive at Tharayil Bus Stand and proceed via Ponniakurrussi Bye pass. All buses from Malapuram/ Manjeri/ Valanchery / Kottakkal shall turn right from Jubilee road junction and arrive at JN Road bus stand and return back through Aysha complex junction. Buses to Mannarkkad shall proceed to Tharayil bus stand and return back and turn left at Aysha comlpex junction and proceed through town, touch Manazhi stand and proceed. Buses to Nilambur side shall arrive at Tharayil bus stand and proceed through Manuthamangalam junction. Buses to Pattambi /Cheruplasseri side shall proceed through Jubilee road. Remarks: As long distance buses to Palakkad side shall not go through town, congestion in the town on the Kozhikode – Palakkad NH will be reduced. All buses from Malapuram/ Valanchery/ Kottakkal shall be catered by Tharayil and JN Road bus stands .Only buses going to Mannarkad side shall go through town. Passengers in need of travelling to Palakkad have to come to Tharayil Stand, as these buses will be entering Tharayil stand only

62

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

Buses coming from Pattambi road direction Proposal: All buses from Pattambi / Cherupulasseri side should turn left at Cherukode corner and enter J N Road bus stand,and proceed back through Jubilee road .Buses to Mannarkad side should proceed to Tharayil Stand and then return back and go through town ,touch Manayi stand and proceed. Buses to Ooty road side should proceed to Tharayil stand and proceed. through Manuthumangalam Byepass. Buses to Kozhikode side shall proceed through Jubilee road. Remarks: Traffic congestions in Perintalmanna town caused by these buses will be reduced General Remarks Keeping in view, the free flow of traffic, and public convenience the following points also have to looked into 1. Road junction at Jubilee road (Kozhikode Side) is having a wide round about. This may be reduced and relocated towards Kozhikode side to make more space for the easy turning of buses turning into Jubilee road. 2. Road junction at Jubilee road (Pattambi side) and at Ayesha Complex should also be widened to facilate the easy turning of buses. 3. A few buses going to and from Mannarkad may be re-routed through Ooty road, for the convenience of public going to Moulana Hospital and Kims Shifa Hospital. 4. The proposal to have Bus stops at the following places is also helpful to the public Mannarkad road - KSRTC, Govt Hospital, Pattambi road -Cherukode corner; Kozhikode road :-Muncipality. 5. Autorikshaw stands may be proposed at Tharayil Bus stand and JN Road stands as public will find it hard to go to various places in town ,as there a very few buses going through town. Conclusion As per the discussion with the Perintalmanna Muncipality authorities, it was proposed to finish the work on the proposed Perintalmanna Muncipality Bus Stand J N Rad Junction building in the month of September, but due the heavy rain and other weather conditions, the work got delayed. This authority has considered the proposal submitted by the Chairman, Perinthalmanna Municipality and the report of the enquiry officer in detail. In the open hearing of this authority there were heated arguments for and against the proposed traffic changes in the town. We are of the opinion that, the paramount consideration has to be given for public convenience and comfort. Hence in order to seek a public opinion on the proposed new

63

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

traffic regulations in Pernthalmanna Municipality, the Secretary RTA will publish the matter and seek opinion from public and place before this authority. Hence decision on this application is adjourned. Item No.100 Heard. This is to reconsider the application for variation of regular permit in respect of the stage Carriage KL 05 S 1080 for deviation of permit from to Thiruvali via Pathiriyal instead of via Edavanna. The Stage Carriage KL 5 S 1080 is now operating on the route of Malappuram-Porur touching Perinthalmanna, Amarambalam, Pallipuram, Manjeri and Edavanna as ordinary service. The matter was enquired through Motor Vehicles Inspector, Malappuram and he had reported that 1. No changes in the halting place 2. Section 80(3) of the MV act is not violated 3. Trip curtailment will be adversely affect the travelling public of that area 4. We have re-considered the application and verified connected files and reports in detail. However we strongly feel that there are violations of Section 80 (3) and KMVR 145 (6) & (7). We have also examined the provisions contained in Rule 145 (6) of Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules 1989, which deals with the variation of permit conditions. This Rule enables this authority to decide on the nature of action to be taken an application for variation; obviously any of the conditions stipulated in this Rule are applicable to this application. Further, we have considered this application as per the provisions contained in Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules 145 (7) which describes how this authority has to consider an application for variation and/or change in existing timing schedule, namely i) Need for Provision of additional facilities or for revision of existing timings in the interest of public ii) Special circumstances, such as changes in the railway timings, changes in the number of permits either on the route or on the sectors of the route, or variation of the routes. The applicant has submitted as if his application for curtailment is as per the interest of public. However there is no statistical evidence and or there is no empirical evidence available before this authority to accept the claim of the applicant. This authority also considered the fact that the permit had been issued to the applicant by considering all these aspects which are mentioned by the applicant and at present, no special situation has aroused to curtail a portion of the route and/or change in existing timing schedule on the approved route.

64

Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram 15.10.2019

The curtailment of portion of the route will normally create a disturbance in the smooth flow of stage carriages on this route. The timings settled and issued to the applicant, obviously after considering the time gap on the route and convening a timing conference. If the requested changes have been made, definitely this will travelling public and ultimately result in putting obstacle on the benefits enjoyed by the regular passengers. The Regional Transport Authority is the statutory authority constituted for the consideration of applications in accordance with Motor Vehicles Act and Rules made there under and also for the interest of the travelling public. However a detailed and objective enquiry report on the above aspects is highly essential for taking a right approach on this application. Hence, in the light of the facts and circumstances explained above, the Secretary, RTA will conduct another enquiry with an officer not below the rank of a Joint Regional Transport Officer and place this application before this authority. Hence decision on this application is adjourned. Item No.101 Heard. 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. Transfer of permit allowed subject to the production of no objection certificate from the financier, if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any. Departmental Item 1 Ratified.

Sri. M. Suresh, Deputy Transport Commissioner (CZ-1); Member, RTA

Sri. Abdul Karim U. IPS, District Police Chief; Member, RTA Malappuram

Sri. Jafar Malik, IAS, District Collector; Chairman RTA, Malappuram.

65