Palakkad.nic.in

DECISIONS OF THE MEETING OF REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD
HELD ON 26.06.2013.
Heard. Perused the connected records. Approval for the bus stand granted,
subject to the condition that the panchayath shall ensure water supply without interruption in the bus stand toilets and in the drinking water pipelines.
Heard. In view of the observations of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala reported in1980 KLT 249,2000(1) KLT 141 and 2005(1) KLT 987, fresh permit is granted,
subject to settlement of timings and subject to production of current records of suitable stage carriage within one month from the date of communication of the decision, failing which grant of permit will be treated as revoked.
Heard. The counsel of the applicant submitted that the applicant has purchased a stage carriage KL 04 L 4834 and the vehicle has been transferred to the name of the grantee to operate service on the granted permit. In view of this submission, one more month’s time is allowed(from the date of communication of this
decision) to produce current records of the above vehicle.
1. Perused the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala dated 28.05.2013 in WP(C) No.13321 of 2013(M) and the judgment dated 17.06.2013 in WP(C) 2. Heard, delay condoned. Secretary is directed to accept the records of
stage carriage KL 05 L 6340 and issue permit after settling timings within Heard. In view of lack services on the ill-served virgin portion Thekkinchira to Mathur, fresh regular permit is granted, subject to
1. Production of modified time schedule providing two more trips to Mathur during the peak hours in the morning and evening and also by increasing the running time between Kollengode and Elavanchery by 5 minutes on trips having less than 30 minutes running time so as to comply the order of State Transport Authority, Kerala (D3/875/STA/2005 dated 08.11.2011) Heard. This application was earlier adjourned on the basis of the objection raised by KSRTC regarding route length and distance of overlapping with notified route.
The field officer after detailed enquiry ascertained and reported that the exact route length is 78.9 Km and overlapping distance is 3.9 Km. The distance of overlapping with notified route is found as within the permissible limit specified in clause 5(c) of G.O(P) No.42/2009/Tran dated 14.07.2009. Hence, regular
permit granted to the offered stage carriage KL 07 AE 5084, subject to
Ratified.
Heard. In view of the representation regarding the lack of sufficient width of the road on the stretch between Vadakkanthara and Melamuri and the difficulty in crossing of two stage carriages coming from opposite directions, secretary is directed to verify the feasibility of introducing more stage carriage services through this portion. Hence, adjourned.
Heard. In view of the existing rules and mode of issuing substitute temporary permits, this authority is not in a position to impose a criteria based on the
nature of the route. But considering the request of KSRTC, Secretary is allowed
to give preference to KSRTC on Substitute Temporary permit applications.
Heard. In view of the observations of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala reported in1980 KLT 249,2000(1) KLT 141 and 2005(1) KLT 987, fresh permit is granted,
subject to settlement of timings and subject to production of current records of suitable stage carriage within one month from the date of communication of the decision, failing which grant of permit will be treated as revoked.
Heard. The proposed route overlaps on the notified route on a distance more than 5% of the total route length and is against the clause 5(C) of G.O (P) No.
42/2009/Tran dated 14.07.2009. Grant of this permit is against the above said notification, hence rejected.
1. The proposed route traverses through and enters Palakkad Town Bus stand.
This RTA has taken decision in the meeting held on 18.03.2013(Item No.22) restricting the further grant of permits through Palakkad Town Bus stand as “
1. Perused the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala dated 05.12.2012 in WP(C) No.
28906 of 2012(K).
2.Heard. Considered the request of the petitioner in WP(C) No.28906 of 2012(K). This RTA
has already taken decision upon the report of NATPAC and Traffic Regulatory Committee of
Palakkad Municipality to shift the starting and halting of some stage carriages to Municipal
bus stand & stadium bus stand, and also decided not to grant fresh permit with terminus as
Palakkad Town Bus Stand. Hence, the request of the petitioner is considered and grievance
is redressed.”
2. The proposed route overlaps in the notified route on a distance of 4 Km which is more than 26% of route length and is the violation of G.O(P) No.
For the above reasons, the application for fresh regular permit rejected.
Heard,granted.
Heard, granted.
Heard. In view of the observations of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala reported in1980 KLT 249,2000(1) KLT 141 and 2005(1) KLT 987, fresh permit is granted,
subject to settlement of timings and subject to production of current records of suitable stage carriage within one month from the date of communication of the decision, failing which grant of permit will be treated as revoked.
Heard. Regular permit granted to stage carriage KL 52 A 8322, subject to
Heard. Fresh regular permit granted to stage carriage KL 10 Q 1589, subject to
settlement of timings with running time as prescribed by STA, Kerala communicated vide order No. D3/875/STA/2005 dated 08.11.2011.
Heard. In view of the observations of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala reported in1980 KLT 249,2000(1) KLT 141 and 2005(1) KLT 987, fresh permit is granted,
subject to settlement of timings and subject to production of current records of suitable stage carriage within one month from the date of communication of the decision, failing which grant of permit will be treated as revoked.
Heard. In view of the observations of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala reported in1980 KLT 249,2000(1) KLT 141 and 2005(1) KLT 987, fresh permit is granted,
subject to settlement of timings and subject to production of current records of suitable stage carriage within one month from the date of communication of the decision, failing which grant of permit will be treated as revoked.
Heard. In view of the observations of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala reported in1980 KLT 249,2000(1) KLT 141 and 2005(1) KLT 987, fresh permit is granted,
subject to settlement of timings and subject to production of current records of suitable stage carriage within one month from the date of communication of the decision, failing which grant of permit will be treated as revoked.
Heard. The field officer reported that on the portion of the proposed route from Manappullikkavu Jn to Chandranagar for a distance of 2.1 Km road widening work is going on and introduction of stage carriage services through this portion is not feasible, hence a report from concerned roads authority is found as necessary before the grant of this permit. Secretary is directed to call for a feasibility report from the concerned authority and place the matter before RTA in the next meeting. The decision on the application is adjourned for the compliance of the
Heard. The field officer has reported that there are more than one path between Ottappalam and Kadampazhipuram. The objector also raised this point. Hence, it is necessary to specify the via through which each trip is intended to operate for the purpose of fixing running time and to fix the path of the route. Applicant is directed to specify the above aspect and to furnish a modified time schedule incorporating the path of the route in each trip. Hence, adjourned.
Heard. In view of the observations of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala reported in1980 KLT 249,2000(1) KLT 141 and 2005(1) KLT 987, fresh permit is granted,
subject to settlement of timings and subject to production of current records of suitable stage carriage within one month from the date of communication of the decision, failing which grant of permit will be treated as revoked.
Heard. Fresh regular permit granted to stage carriage KL 09 J 7482, subject to
Heard. In view of the observations of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala reported in1980 KLT 249,2000(1) KLT 141 and 2005(1) KLT 987, fresh permit is granted,
subject to settlement of timings and subject to production of current records of suitable stage carriage within one month from the date of communication of the decision, failing which grant of permit will be treated as revoked.
Heard,granted.
Heard, granted.
Heard, variation of permit granted, subject to settlement of timings in
compliance to the decision of STA,Kerala communicated vide order No.
Heard, variation of permit granted, subject to settlement of timings in
compliance to the decision of STA,Kerala communicated vide order No.
1. Variation of permit granted, subject to settlement of timings in
compliance to the decision of STA,Kerala communicated vide order No.
2. Secretary is directed to ascertain the length of the route in Malappuram and Palakkad district after variation and take necessary action based on Heard, variation of permit granted, subject to settlement of timings in
compliance to the decision of STA,Kerala communicated vide order No.
Heard. Trips to Ummanezhi is found curtailed as per the proposed time schedule.
But is not seen mentioned in the variation application. The field officer has also not furnished about curtailment of trips in his report. The applicant is directed to modify the time schedule tallying with the variation application. Hence, decision on the application is adjourned.
Heard. The variation application is re-considered based on the time schedules(existing & proposed) submitted by the applicant on 09.05.2013. On perusal of the connected records, it is found that the existing permit and time schedule are issued subsequent to the variation of permit granted by this RTA on 17.11.2007 in supplementary Item No.92, considering the necessity of variation The present variation application is filed by suppressing the details of existing permit and its routes. This application is not containing the curtailments of (a) Karimpuzha to Kadampazhipuram via Kulakattukurissi.
(b) Poovathani to Cherplassery via Thootha.
As per the proposed time schedule, no trips to the above mentioned existing In the above circumstances, the variation application along with the proposed time schedule are found as defective and misguiding one. Hence, the variation application is not maintainable and is rejected.
Heard, variation of permit granted, subject to settlement of timings in
compliance to the decision of STA,Kerala communicated vide order No.
Heard. The proposed variation is to deviate the route through Koodallur by curtailing the existing route portion through Malamakkavu Temple. The field officer has reported that this variation will adversely affect the existing travelling facility through Malamakkavu Temple which is comparatively lesser than that through the proposed deviation portion through Koodallur. This variation application is not satisfying the convenience of the travelling public as laid down under the proviso to section 80(3)(2) of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Hence, rejected.
(1) The variation application includes increase of trips through notified portion from Kuttippuram to Thrikkanapuram, which is the violation of G.O(P) No.
(2) The proposed deviation passes through Perunthallur and Alathiyur which is coming under the route portion in the draft notification No.
8154/B1/12/Tran dated 24.01.2013 and is the violation of the said For the above reasons, the application for variation permit is rejected.
Heard. The time schedule and application are not tallying each other. The applicant is directed to specify the curtailment of route or deviations if any, as these are not specifically mentioned in the application. The field officer has also not furnished these specific points in his report, hence adjourned.
(1) Secretary is permitted to seek concurrence for renewal of permit from
the concerned sister RTA, with specific mention regarding the exact distance of overlapping with the notified route/approved scheme in the (2) Applicant is directed to produce ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the Heard. This application for renewal of permit was filed on 19.04.2013. Permit was valid up to 02.04.2013. This authority is convinced that the applicant was prevented by good and sufficient reasons from filing the renewal application in time. Hence, delay in filing the permit renewal application is condoned.
Hence, renewal of permit granted from the date of application, subject to
(1) verification of service of the vehicle after expiry of permit. (2) clause 4 of G.O(P) No.42/2009/Tran dated 14.07.2009. (3) Disposal of WP(C) No.20520/2009 & WP(C) No.22196/2009 by Hon’ble High Court of Kerala. (4) Production of NOC from the finance Co. if applicable and clearing of Govt.
Secretary is permitted to seek concurrence for renewal of permit from the
concerned sister RTA, with specific mention regarding the exact distance of overlapping with the notified route/approved scheme in the jurisdiction of that (1) Secretary is permitted to seek concurrence for renewal of permit from
the concerned sister RTA, with specific mention regarding the exact distance of overlapping with the notified route/approved scheme in the (2) Applicant is directed to produce ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the (1) Secretary is permitted to seek concurrence for renewal of permit from
the concerned sister RTA, with specific mention regarding the exact distance of overlapping with the notified route/approved scheme in the (2) Secretary is directed to keep the permit renewal application in abeyance in view of the draft notification No. 5651/B2/2009/Tran dated 02.08.2012.
1. Perused the order dated 30.04.2013 in MVARP No.42/2013 of Hon’ble 2. In obedience to the above order of Hon’ble STAT, application for permit renewal is kept in abeyance and Secretary is permitted to seek
concurrence for renewal of permit from the concerned sister RTA, with
specific mention regarding the exact distance of overlapping with the notified route/approved scheme in the jurisdiction of that RTA.
Heard. Secretary is permitted to seek concurrence for renewal of permit from
the concerned sister RTA, with specific mention regarding the exact distance of overlapping with the notified route/approved scheme in the jurisdiction of that Heard. Secretary is permitted to seek concurrence for renewal of permit from
the concerned sister RTA, with specific mention regarding the exact distance of overlapping with the notified route/approved scheme in the jurisdiction of that Heard. Secretary is permitted to seek concurrence for renewal of permit from
the concerned sister RTA, with specific mention regarding the exact distance of overlapping with the notified route/approved scheme in the jurisdiction of that Heard. Secretary is permitted to seek concurrence for renewal of permit from
the concerned sister RTA, with specific mention regarding the exact distance of overlapping with the notified route/approved scheme in the jurisdiction of that (1) Perused the judgment of Hon’ble STAT, Ernakulam in MVAA No. 75/2013 (2) In obedience to the direction in the judgment, renewal of permit granted
as LSOS subject to (1) clause 4 of G.O(P) No.42/2009/Tran dated 14.07.2009. (2) Disposal of WP(C) No.20520/2009 & WP(C) No.22196/2009 by Hon’ble High Court of Kerala. (3) Production of NOC from the finance Co. if applicable and clearing of Govt. dues, if any.
(3).Transfer of permit allowed, subject to submitting NOC from the HP Co.,
if applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any.
1. Perused the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala dated 07.02.2013 in 2. Heard, in obedience to above judgment, permit renewal application is considered. On perusal of records, it is found that the financier bank refused to issue ‘No Objection Certificate’ due to the default in repayment of loan amount availed from the bank by the applicant and the matter was informed to the permit holder on 31.12.2012 prior to the expiry of this permit. Susbsequently the bank has informed the refusal of NOC in a reply dated 20.05.2013 to the Secretarty, RTA, Palakkad.
As per section 51(6) of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 the permit renewal application shall be accompanied with the NOC obtained from the financier. But in this case, as mentioned above, the financier bank had repeatedly refused to issue No Objection Certificate and the applicant has not produced any order from any appropriate forum exempting him from the above provision. In this circumstances, the permit renewal
application is considered U/S 51(9)(a) of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and
renewal of permit is refused.
3. In view of the above decision (2), the application for temporary permit
under section 87(1)(d) of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 dated 29.12.2012 is not maintainable and hence rejected.
Secretary is directed to verify the feasibility of issuing temporary permit under section 87(1)(C) of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 under the existing notification G.O(P) No. 42/2009/Tran dated 14.07.2009 by ascertaining the need of the service.
(1) Secretary is permitted to seek concurrence for renewal of permit from
the concerned sister RTA, with specific mention regarding the exact distance of overlapping with the notified route/approved scheme in the (2) Replacement application is considered and adjourned for want of
renewal of permit. Secretary is allowed to grant temporary permit to the (3) Secretary is also permitted to grant renewal and replacement on receipt of concurrence from the concerned sister RTA complying normal procedure.
Heard. This application for renewal of permit was filed on 12.03.2013. Permit was valid up to 09.02.2013. This authority is convinced that the applicant was prevented by good and sufficient reasons from filing the renewal application in time. Hence, delay in filing the permit renewal application is condoned.
Hence, renewal of permit granted from the date of application, subject
to(1) verification of service of the vehicle after expiry of permit. (2) clause 4 of G.O(P) No.42/2009/Tran dated 14.07.2009. (3) Disposal of WP(C) No.20520/2009 & WP(C) No.22196/2009 by Hon’ble High Court of Kerala. (4) Production of NOC from the finance Co. if applicable and clearing of Govt.
Heard. Secretary is permitted to seek concurrence for renewal of permit from
the concerned sister RTA, with specific mention regarding the exact distance of overlapping with the notified route/approved scheme in the jurisdiction of that 1. Perused the judgement of Hon’ble State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam dated 29.04.2013 in MVAA No.131/2013.
2. Secretary is permitted to seek concurrence for renewal of permit from the
concerned sister RTA, with specific mention regarding the exact distance of overlapping with the notified route/approved scheme in the jurisdiction of Re-considered the application for permit renewal and the application for conversion of service as Super fast service. As per rule 2[(Oa)] of KMV Rules, 1989, an ordinary service can be operated only up to 140 Km. The route length in this case is 186 Km, and violates rule 2[(Oa)] of KMV Rules, 1989. The draft Notification 5651/B2/2009/Tran dated 02.08.2012, reserves the right to operate any higher class stage carriage service (other than ordinary service) exclusively to State Transport Undertaking. Hence, Permit renewal
application is rejected.
The conversion of service as super fast is
considered and rejected for the following reasons.
(a) Conversion of service as Super Fast will adversely affect the traveling public and students depending this service.
(b) The KSRTC vehemently objected the conversation of service as Super Fast as the major portion of the route overlaps the notified route and the conversion of service will adversely affect their similar services on this (c) As per notification No. 42/2009/Tran dated 14.07.2009, the right to operate any new service is reserved exclusively to State Transport Undertaking only. If the conversion of service as Super fast is granted, it will result as introduction of a new service and violate the above said (d) Stops will be reduced, students depending this service on various portions of its route will be deprived of their concessional rate traveling facility.
(e) The daily commuters on various portions of this service will have to pay higher rate of fare without availing any additional facilities.
(f) Since conversion of service is against the stipulations in the draft notification No. 5651/B2/2009/Tran dated 02.08.2012.
(1) Secretary is permitted to seek concurrence for renewal of permit from
the concerned sister RTA, with specific mention regarding the exact distance of overlapping with the notified route/approved scheme in the (2) Applicant is directed to produce ‘No Objection Certificate’ from the Heard. Secretary is permitted to seek concurrence for renewal of permit from
the concerned sister RTA, with specific mention regarding the exact distance of overlapping with the notified route/approved scheme in the jurisdiction of that Heard. This is a super fast stage carriage permit. As per draft notification No.
5651/B2/2009/Tran dated 02.08.2012, this permit cannot be renewed. Hence, Permit renewal application is kept in abeyance, till the finalisation of the above notification. Hence, adjourned.
Secretary is permitted to entertain application for temporary permit(under section 99(2) of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988) if any, filed by the applicant.
Heard. Secretary is permitted to seek concurrence for renewal of permit from
the concerned sister RTA, with specific mention regarding the exact distance of overlapping with the notified route/approved scheme in the jurisdiction of that Heard. Secretary is permitted to seek concurrence for renewal of permit from
the concerned sister RTA, with specific mention regarding the exact distance of overlapping with the notified route/approved scheme in the jurisdiction of that (1) Perused the judgment of Hon’ble STAT, Ernakulam in MVARP No.67/2013 (2) Heard, in obedience to the above judgment renewal of permit granted,
subject to (1) clause 4 of G.O(P) No.42/2009/Tran dated 14.07.2009. (2) Disposal of WP(C) No.20520/2009 & WP(C) No.22196/2009 by Hon’ble High Court of Kerala. (3) Production of NOC from the finance Co. if applicable and clearing of Govt. dues, if any.
Heard. Secretary is permitted to seek concurrence for renewal of permit from
the concerned sister RTA, with specific mention regarding the exact distance of overlapping with the notified route/approved scheme in the jurisdiction of that Heard. Secretary is permitted to seek concurrence for renewal of permit from
the concerned sister RTA, with specific mention regarding the exact distance of overlapping with the notified route/approved scheme in the jurisdiction of that Heard. Considering the more travelling facility to the public, increase in revenue to Government and the fact that only one seat is more than the 25% material respects, the replacement granted, subject to clearing of Govt. dues, if any.
(1) Transfer of permit allowed, subject to submitting NOC from the HP Co., if
applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any.
(2) Considering the more travelling facility to the public, increase in revenue to Government and the fact that only three seats are more than the 25% material respects, the replacement granted, subject to clearing of Govt.
dues, if any and in view of the decision (1) above.
Heard. Considering the more travelling facility to the public, increase in revenue to Government and the fact that only three seats are more than the 25% material respects, the replacement granted, subject to clearing of Govt. dues, if any.
(1) Perused the interim order of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala dated 12.06.2013 in WP(C) No.14544 of 2013(P).
In view of the above judgment, replacement and renewal of permit are
granted, subject to (1) clause 4(c) of G.O(P) No.42/2009/Tran dated 14.07.2009.
(2) Disposal of WP(C) No.20520/2009 and 22196/2009 by Hon’ble High Court of Kerala. (3) Production of NOC from the finance Co., if applicable and clearing of (4) In view of the decisions (2) & (3) above, the application for temporary
Permit under section 87(1) (d) is not maintainable and is infructuous.
This permit was originally issued on 27.04.2002, subject to countersignature of RTA, Malappuram. Counter signature is not seen obtained by the permit holder so far. But the permit was once renewed in view of the general concurrence granted by RTA, Malappauram for a distance up to 10 Km. But this authority feels it is necessary to obtain concurrence of sister RTA, Malappuram for effectiveness of the permit so as to treat it as renewable. Secretary is
directed to seek concurrence from RTA, Malappuram, for renewal of permit
from the concerned sister RTA, with specific mention regarding the exact distance of overlapping with the notified route/approved scheme in the (1) Replacement granted, subject to renewal of permit.
(2) Decision on the application for renewal of permit is adjourned.
Heard. As per rule 174(2)(c) of KMV Rules, 1989, if a the vehicle offered for replacement is older than the existing vehicle, the application for replacement is liable to be rejected. In this application, the incoming vehicle is older than out- going vehicle by 2(two) years. Hence, the application for replacement is
rejected.
Heard. Considering the more travelling facility to the public, increase in revenue to Government and the fact that only one seat is more than the 25% material respects, the replacement granted, subject to clearing of Govt. dues, if any.
Heard, transfer of permit allowed, subject to submitting NOC from the HP Co., if
applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any.
Heard, the objection raised by the Motor Transport Employees Union is not maintainable against the transfer of permit application under the provision of rules in this regard. Hence, objection is overruled and transfer of permit
allowed, subject to submitting NOC from the HP Co., if applicable and clearance
Heard, transfer of permit allowed, subject to submitting NOC from the HP Co., if
applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any.
Heard, transfer of permit allowed, subject to submitting NOC from the HP Co., if
applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any.
Heard, transfer of permit allowed, subject to submitting NOC from the HP Co., if
applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any.
Heard, transfer of permit allowed, subject to submitting NOC from the HP Co., if
applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any.
Heard, transfer of permit allowed, subject to submitting NOC from the HP Co., if
applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any.
Heard, transfer of permit allowed, subject to submitting NOC from the HP Co., if
applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any.
Heard, transfer of permit allowed, subject to submitting NOC from the HP Co., if
applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any.
Heard, transfer of permit allowed, subject to submitting NOC from the HP Co., if
applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any.
Heard, transfer of permit allowed, subject to submitting NOC from the HP Co., if
applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any.
Heard, transfer of permit allowed, subject to submitting NOC from the HP Co., if
applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any.
Heard, transfer of permit allowed, subject to submitting NOC from the HP Co., if
applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any.
Heard, transfer of permit allowed, subject to submitting NOC from the HP Co., if
applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any.
Heard, transfer of permit allowed, subject to submitting NOC from the HP Co., if
applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any.
Heard, transfer of permit allowed, subject to submitting NOC from the HP Co., if
applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any.
Heard, transfer of permit allowed, subject to submitting NOC from the HP Co., if
applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any.
Heard, transfer of permit allowed, subject to submitting NOC from the HP Co., if
applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any.
Heard, transfer of permit allowed, subject to submitting NOC from the HP Co., if
applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any.
Heard, transfer of permit allowed, subject to submitting NOC from the HP Co., if
applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any.
Heard, transfer of permit allowed, subject to submitting NOC from the HP Co., if
applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any.
(1) Decision on the application for transfer of permit is adjourned for permit
(2) Secretary is permitted to seek concurrence for renewal of permit from
the concerned sister RTA, with specific mention regarding the exact distance of overlapping with the notified route/approved scheme in the (3) Adjourned the decision on variation application for want of concurrence
from sister RTAs and in view of the draft notification No.
Heard, transfer of permit allowed, subject to submitting NOC from the HP Co., if
applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any.
Heard, transfer of permit allowed, subject to submitting NOC from the HP Co., if
applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any.
Heard, transfer of permit allowed, subject to submitting NOC from the HP Co., if
applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any.
Heard, transfer of permit allowed, subject to submitting NOC from the HP Co., if
applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any.
Heard, transfer of permit allowed, subject to submitting NOC from the HP Co., if
applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any.
Heard, transfer of permit allowed, subject to submitting NOC from the HP Co., if
applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any.
Heard, as per Rule 289 of KMV Rules 1989, the installation of audio visual devices of any kind is prohibited in stage carriages. Hence, the request is rejected.
Heard, the maximum time allowable for production of current records u/r 172(3) of KMV Rules, 1989 has expired on 14.06.2013, ie., four months from the date of communication of the decision. Hence, grant of renewal of permit is revoked.
Concurrence for renewal of permit is granted, subject to (1) clause 4 of G.O(P)
No.42/2009/Tran dated 14.07.2009, without prejudice to the right of the primary authority to decide the nature of the service depending on the route length and (2) disposal of WP(C) No.20520/2009 and 22196/2009 by Hon’ble High Court of Concurrence for renewal of permit is granted, subject to (1) clause 4 of G.O(P)
No.42/2009/Tran dated 14.07.2009, without prejudice to the right of the primary authority to decide the nature of the service depending on the route length and (2) disposal of WP(C) No.20520/2009 and 22196/2009 by Hon’ble High Court of Concurrence for renewal of permit is granted, subject to (1) clause 4 of G.O(P)
No.42/2009/Tran dated 14.07.2009, without prejudice to the right of the primary authority to decide the nature of the service depending on the route length and (2) disposal of WP(C) No.20520/2009 and 22196/2009 by Hon’ble High Court of Concurrence for renewal of permit is granted, subject to (1) clause 4 of G.O(P)
No.42/2009/Tran dated 14.07.2009, without prejudice to the right of the primary authority to decide the nature of the service depending on the route length and (2) disposal of WP(C) No.20520/2009 and 22196/2009 by Hon’ble High Court of Concurrence for renewal of permit is granted, subject to (1) clause 4 of G.O(P)
No.42/2009/Tran dated 14.07.2009, without prejudice to the right of the primary authority to decide the nature of the service depending on the route length and (2) disposal of WP(C) No.20520/2009 and 22196/2009 by Hon’ble High Court of Concurrence for renewal of permit is granted, subject to (1) clause 4 of G.O(P)
No.42/2009/Tran dated 14.07.2009, without prejudice to the right of the primary authority to decide the nature of the service depending on the route length and (2) disposal of WP(C) No.20520/2009 and 22196/2009 by Hon’ble High Court of Concurrence for renewal of permit is granted, subject to (1) clause 4 of G.O(P)
No.42/2009/Tran dated 14.07.2009, without prejudice to the right of the primary authority to decide the nature of the service depending on the route length and (2) disposal of WP(C) No.20520/2009 and 22196/2009 by Hon’ble High Court of Concurrence for renewal of permit is granted, subject to (1) clause 4 of G.O(P)
No.42/2009/Tran dated 14.07.2009, without prejudice to the right of the primary authority to decide the nature of the service depending on the route length and (2) disposal of WP(C) No.20520/2009 and 22196/2009 by Hon’ble High Court of Concurrence for renewal of permit is granted, subject to (1) clause 4 of G.O(P)
No.42/2009/Tran dated 14.07.2009, without prejudice to the right of the primary authority to decide the nature of the service depending on the route length and (2) disposal of WP(C) No.20520/2009 and 22196/2009 by Hon’ble High Court of Concurrence for renewal of permit is granted, subject to (1) clause 4 of G.O(P)
No.42/2009/Tran dated 14.07.2009, without prejudice to the right of the primary authority to decide the nature of the service depending on the route length and (2) disposal of WP(C) No.20520/2009 and 22196/2009 by Hon’ble High Court of Heard. The field officer has not reported the distance of overlapping in this district. Secretary is directed to ascertain the overlapping on the notified route, if any on the extended portion. Hence, adjourned.
Concurrence for renewal of permit is granted, subject to (1) clause 4 of G.O(P)
No.42/2009/Tran dated 14.07.2009, without prejudice to the right of the primary authority to decide the nature of the service depending on the route length and (2) disposal of WP(C) No.20520/2009 and 22196/2009 by Hon’ble High Court of Concurrence for renewal of permit is granted, subject to (1) clause 4 of G.O(P)
No.42/2009/Tran dated 14.07.2009, without prejudice to the right of the primary authority to decide the nature of the service depending on the route length and (2) disposal of WP(C) No.20520/2009 and 22196/2009 by Hon’ble High Court of Concurrence for renewal of permit is granted, subject to (1) clause 4 of G.O(P)
No.42/2009/Tran dated 14.07.2009, without prejudice to the right of the primary authority to decide the nature of the service depending on the route length and (2) disposal of WP(C) No.20520/2009 and 22196/2009 by Hon’ble High Court of Concurrence for renewal of permit is granted, subject to (1) clause 4 of G.O(P)
No.42/2009/Tran dated 14.07.2009, without prejudice to the right of the primary authority to decide the nature of the service depending on the route length and (2) disposal of WP(C) No.20520/2009 and 22196/2009 by Hon’ble High Court of Concurrence for renewal of permit is granted, subject to (1) clause 4 of G.O(P)
No.42/2009/Tran dated 14.07.2009, without prejudice to the right of the primary authority to decide the nature of the service depending on the route length and (2) disposal of WP(C) No.20520/2009 and 22196/2009 by Hon’ble High Court of Concurrence for renewal of permit is granted, subject to (1) clause 4 of G.O(P)
No.42/2009/Tran dated 14.07.2009, without prejudice to the right of the primary authority to decide the nature of the service depending on the route length and (2) disposal of WP(C) No.20520/2009 and 22196/2009 by Hon’ble High Court of Concurrence for renewal of permit is granted, subject to (1) clause 4 of G.O(P)
No.42/2009/Tran dated 14.07.2009, without prejudice to the right of the primary authority to decide the nature of the service depending on the route length and (2) disposal of WP(C) No.20520/2009 and 22196/2009 by Hon’ble High Court of Concurrence for renewal of permit is granted, subject to (1) clause 4 of G.O(P)
No.42/2009/Tran dated 14.07.2009, without prejudice to the right of the primary authority to decide the nature of the service depending on the route length and (2) disposal of WP(C) No.20520/2009 and 22196/2009 by Hon’ble High Court of Concurrence for renewal of permit is granted, subject to (1) clause 4 of G.O(P)
No.42/2009/Tran dated 14.07.2009, without prejudice to the right of the primary authority to decide the nature of the service depending on the route length and (2) disposal of WP(C) No.20520/2009 and 22196/2009 by Hon’ble High Court of Concurrence for renewal of permit is granted, subject to (1) clause 4 of G.O(P)
No.42/2009/Tran dated 14.07.2009, without prejudice to the right of the primary authority to decide the nature of the service depending on the route length and (2) disposal of WP(C) No.20520/2009 and 22196/2009 by Hon’ble High Court of 1. Perused the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala dated 25.02.2013 in WP(C) No.2720/2013, WP(C) No.24772 & 25962 of 2012.
2. Heard all parties concerned. In obedience to the judgment in WP(C) No.2720/2013 dated 25.02.2013 of High Court of Kerala, considered the four aspects mentioned in the above judgment and arrived at the following (1) The first aspect was whether the original route permit granted to Sri.C.A.Rajan has been cancelled on his request. On perusal of connected records of the vehicle KL 02 K 4069, it is revealed that Sri.C.A.Rajan had filed request for cancellation of the regular permit issued to him on the route Palakkad-Guruvayur in respect of stage carriage KL 02 K 4069 on 16.10.2008 remitting the fee for cancellation. The request for cancellation was made while a renewal application dated 04.09.2007, not signed by him, was pending with secretary, RTA. The request for cancellation dated 16.10.2008 was filed stating that he is not interested to renew the permit due to some un avoidable circumstances. Subsequently on 05.03.2010 the permit holder again filed a reminder requesting action on the permit cancellation request enclosing the tax arrears remittance details. Thereafter on 09.03.2010 the Secretary, RTA, accepted the surrender of permit for cancellation. This was done on the subsequent insistence by the permit holder for the cancellation of permit. Both requests dated 16.10.2008 and 05.03.2010 are found signed by the permit holder himself and on the other hand the renewal application was not signed by him. The vehicle KL 02 K 4069 was also not in operation for so many years and it is found reported as in a dilapidated condition. In the above circumstances, the regular permit issued to Sri.C.A.Rajan, the permit holder of KL 02 K 4069 stands cancelled as requested by him. Hence it is decided as (2) Tax in respect of stage carriage KL 02 K 4069 was under arrears from 01.10.2006 and cleared up to 31.12.2007 and the vehicle is found filed with form G application from 01.01.2008 onwards for various periods and the tax for the above period is remaining un-settled.
Secretary is directed to settle the tax forthwith.
(3) In view of the decision in item No(1) above and considering the merits of the objections raised by KSRTC and other petitioners in writ petitions 24772 & 25962/12 and in WP(C) 2720/13, the original permit issued to Sri.C.A.Rajan cannot be renewed. Since the permit is not validly in existence, the same is not transferable to anybody.
(4) Since the original permit is not validly in existence, temporary permits of any kind cannot be issued except to KSRTC on temporary need as the issue of such permits as afresh is against the notification No.G.O(P)No.42/2009/Tran dated 14.07.2009 due to the fact that the route length is 92 Kms and a distance of 42.5 Km overlaps on the notified routes which is 46% of the route length which is the violation of the above notification.
Heard. Secretary is permitted to seek concurrence for renewal of permit from
the concerned sister RTA, with specific mention regarding the exact distance of overlapping with the notified route/approved scheme in the jurisdiction of that Heard. Transfer of permit allowed to the name of Smt.N.N.Gowri vide decision of this RTA dated 29.11.2012 is modified as transfer of permit allowed to the name Moorkkanikara, Kozhukulli, Thrissur in view of the certificate No. 1926/12 dated 13.08.2012 issued by the Village Officer of No.67, Kozhukully.
Heard, transfer of permit allowed, subject to submitting NOC from the HP Co., if
applicable and clearance of Govt. dues, if any.
Deputy Transport Commissioner, District Police Chief & Central Zone-1, Thrissur & Member, Regional Transport Member, Regional Transport Authority, Authority, Palakkad.

Source: http://palakkad.nic.in/DECISION-OF-RTA-PKD26-06-2013.pdf