Kerala High Court
Ajayakumar K vs The Regional Transport Authority on 15 July, 2026
CNR : KLHC011046972024
2026:KER:52365
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN
WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2026/24TH ASHADHA, 1948
WA NO. 651 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.04.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.5908 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS:
1 ABDUL RAHIM
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O MOHAMMED ABDUL KHADER, TC 3 6/ 1136, KHADER
COTTAGE, PERUNTHANNI, VALLAKKADAVU P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,(REGISTERED OWNER AND PEMIT
HOLDER OF STAGE CARRIAGE KL 0L/CC 786), PIN -
695026
2 PRADEEP.V
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O VELLIKUTTY,PRAKASA BHAVAN, SREEKANDESWARAM,
FORT P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, (REGISTERED OWNER
AND PERMIT HOLDER OF STAGE CARRIAGE KL 01 /BH
5318), PIN - 695029
3 D.GOPAKUMAR
AGED 69 YEARS
S/O DAMODARAN, 5A SFS CAPITOL ONE APPARTMENTS
USRA, SASTHARNANGALAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ,
(REGISTERED OWNER AND PERMIT HOLDER OF STAGE
CARRIAGE KL 01/BH 6789), PIN - 695010
4 RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI.M
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O MADHAVAN PILLAI, KULANGARA VEEDU,
VALANCHERRY, KILIMANNOOR, (REGISTERED OWNER AND
CNR : KLHC011046972024
2026:KER:52365
WA NOS. 651 & 655 OF 2024
2
PEMIT HOLDER OF STAGE CARRIAGE KL 16/E 6609),
PIN - 695601
5 SHEEBA RAHIM
AGED 49 YEARS
W/O ABDUL MAJEED, 36/93 SHEEBA MANZIL, KERA-123
, KAIRALI ROAD, PERUNTHANNI, VALLAKKADAVU P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,(REGISTERED OWNER AND PERMIT
HOLDER OF STAGE CARRIAGE KL 59/A 3690), PIN -
695008
6 R.P SAJITHKUMAR
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O RAVINDRAN NAIR, R.P BHAVAN, THANNIMOOD
VILLA, ULLOOR, MANNANTHALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
(REGISTERED OWNER AND PERMIT HOLDER OF STAGE
CARRIAGE KL 25/A 1314), PIN - 695015
7 ARUNA UNNIKRISHNAN
AGED 63 YEARS
W/O UNNIKRISHNAN, RITA NIVAS, RKV ROAD,
KANAKAKUNNU LANE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
(REGISTERED OWNER AND PEMIT HOLDER OF STAGE
CARRIAGE KL 07/AZ 6920), PIN - 695033
8 SHEELA.S
AGED 58 YEARS
W/O RATNAKARAN, KIZAKKATHIL VEEDU,
KADINAMKULAM, PUTHUKURICHY P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, (REGISTERED OWNER AND
PERMIT HOLDER OF STAGE CARRIAGE KL 22/A 5107),
PIN - 695303
9 PREMJITH
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O PRABHAKARAN NAIR, RENJITH NIVAS, VAZAYILA,
PEROORKADA, THIMVANANTHAPURAM, (REGISTERED
OWNER AND PERMIT HOLDER OF STAGE CARRIAGE KL
0L/BS 2131), PIN - 695005
BY ADV SHRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR
CNR : KLHC011046972024
2026:KER:52365
WA NOS. 651 & 655 OF 2024
3
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE
SECRETARY 5TH FLOOR, KSRTC TERMINAL,
THAMPANOOR, TH IRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023
2 THE SECRETARY
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 5TH FLOOR, KSRTC TERMINAL,
THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023
3 REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER (ENFORCEMENT)
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 5TH FLOOR, KSRTC TERMINAL,
THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023
BY ADV SRI.SANEEJ.E.S., GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
15.07.2026, ALONG WITH WA.655/2024, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CNR : KLHC011046972024
2026:KER:52365
WA NOS. 651 & 655 OF 2024
4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN
WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2026/24TH ASHADHA, 1948
WA NO. 655 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.04.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.5405 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS:
1 AJAYAKUMAR K
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O KRISHNA PILLAI, KARTHIKA, KARAKULALN P.O,
NEDUMAGAND- (REGISTERED OWNER AND PEMIT HOLDER
OF STAGE CARRIAGE (KL 21/B 1112), PIN - 695564
2 MAHESH CHANDRAN K.S
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O SADASIVAN NAIR, T.C 28/2290, ALLAPPMATH
VEED, NEAR OVER BRIDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
(REGISTERED OWNER AND PERMIT HOLDER OF STAGE
CARRIAGE KL 01/AT 5353), PIN - 695023
3 MURALEEDHARAN NAIR A
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O APPUKKUTTAN NAIR, TC 31/230(2) SAROJINI
NIVAS, NEAR ITI CHACKAI, PETTA P.O
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,(REGISTERED OWNER AND PERMIT
HOLDER OF STAGE CARRIAGE KL 19/3263 AND KL 59/F
7077 AND KL 31/BJ 9693), PIN - 695024
CNR : KLHC011046972024
2026:KER:52365
WA NOS. 651 & 655 OF 2024
5
4 P. SHABEELA BEEVI
AGED 60 YEARS
W/O B.M SHAREEF, RAGAM MANZIL PANACHAMOOD P.O,
THIRUVANATHAPURAM,(REGISTERED OWNER AND PERMIT
HOLDER OF STAGE CARRIAGE KL 16/H 7374), PIN -
695001
5 P. VENUGOPALAN NAIR
AGED 68 YEARS
S/O PADBHANABHA PILLAI, T.C 28/515(28/514-1 )
KAITHAMUKKU, SREEKAIDESWARAM WARD
THIRUVANANTHAPURAN,(REGISTERED OWNER AND PERMIT
HOLDER OF STAGE CARRIAGE KL 01/BH 2250), PIN -
695009
6 G. RAJAN
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O GEBRIAL, THIRUHRIDAYA VILASAM KODUNGANNOOR
P.O, VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
(REGISTERED OWNER AND PERMIT HOLDER OF STAGE
CARRIAGE KL 01/BT 2010), PIN - 695013
7 SHERLY JOHN
AGED 43 YEARS
W/O G. RAJAN, THIRUHRIDAYA VILASAM T.C 6/120
KODUNGOOR P.O, VATTIYOORKAVU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,(REGISTERED OWNER AND PERMIT
HOLDER OF STAGE CARRIAGE KL 01/AS 4707), PIN -
695013
8 SREEJA R.S
AGED 47 YEARS
W/O SREEJITH,REJASREE, AMBALATHARA, POONTHURA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,(REGISTERED OWNER AND PERMIT
HOLDER OF STAGE CARRIAGE KL 01/AV 0691), PIN -
695026
9 V. MITHRADAS
AGED 68 YEARS
S/O VELAYUDHAN , KOCHUMANI HOUSE OOLANKUZHI,
ANAYAAR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,(REGISTERED
OWNER AND PERMIT HOLDER OF STAGE CARRIAGE KL
CNR : KLHC011046972024
2026:KER:52365
WA NOS. 651 & 655 OF 2024
6
01/BG 4427), PIN - 695029
0 MANJUSHA
AGED 54 YEARS
W/O JAYABALAN, 31/677 KARTHIKA, CHACKAI,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,(REGISTERED OWNER AND PERMIT
HOLDER OF STAGE CARRIAGE KL 01/AU 7878), PIN -
695024
BY ADV SHRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE
SECRETARY 5TH FLOOR, KSRTC TERMINAL,
THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-, PIN - 695013
2 THE SECRETARY
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 5TH FLOOR, KSRTC TERMINAL,
THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023
3 REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER (ENFORCEMENT)
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 5TH FLOOR, KSRTC TERMINAL,
THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023
BY ADV.SRI.E.S.SANEEJ, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
15.07.2026, ALONG WITH WA.651/2024, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CNR : KLHC011046972024
2026:KER:52365
WA NOS. 651 & 655 OF 2024
7
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 15th day of July, 2026
Both these appeals are filed by the
appellants/writ petitioners against the common
judgment dated 23.04.2024 in W.P.(C) Nos.5405 and
5908 of 2024, whereby the learned Single Judge of this
Court dismissed the writ petitions.
2. The rank of parties and documents are
referred to in this judgment as in W.P.(C).No.5405 of
2024 and W.A.No.655 of 2024.
3. We have heard the arguments of the
learned counsel for the appellants in both cases and
the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.
4. The case of the appellants before the
learned Single Judge was that the 1st respondent, by
invoking the provisions of Section 86 of the Motor
CNR : KLHC011046972024
2026:KER:52365
WA NOS. 651 & 655 OF 2024
8
Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’)
passed Ext.P14 order, suspending the stage carriage
permits for violation of permit conditions prescribed
under Section 84 of the Act. It is contended that the
respondents had issued a notice under Rule 167 of the
Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the CMV Rules’) followed by Ext.P2(a)
show-cause notice. It is contended that although the
petitioners filed their explanation within the prescribed
time period of 90 days as per Ext.P3, the respondents,
without referring the matter to a Virtual Court or a
regular Court, proceeded to pass Ext.P14 order
suspending the permit, which is in violation of Section
167 of the CMV Rules. The learned Single Judge, after
considering the arguments on both sides, dismissed
both the writ petitions. Accordingly, the appellants are
before this Court seeking to quash Ext.P14 order.
CNR : KLHC011046972024
2026:KER:52365
WA NOS. 651 & 655 OF 2024
9
5. The learned counsel for the appellant
also strenuously contended that the impugned order is
erroneous and liable to be set aside. He argued that
Ext.P14 order has been issued without considering the
e-challan issued by the respondents under Rules 167
and 167(2) of the CMV Rules. Furthermore, despite the
appellants submitted explanation, the penalty was
imposed without referring the matter to the court for
prosecution or awaiting a judicial decision. Therefore
the very action taken by the respondents under
Section 86 is clear violation of the Rules and as such,
the Court is required to interfere and set aside the
impugned order. The learned counsel also brought to
our notice the fact that the Central Government has
amended Rule 167 with effect from 20.01.2026. Such
being the case, suspending the permit without
awaiting the decision of the prosecution court is
CNR : KLHC011046972024
2026:KER:52365
WA NOS. 651 & 655 OF 2024
10
nothing but imposing a punishment before a final
decision is taken. Consequently, the learned counsel
prayed that the appeals be allowed and the order at
Ext.P14 be quashed.
6. Per contra, the learned Government
Pleader objected the appeals and contended that
Ext.P14 order passed under Section 86 is appealable
under Section 89 of the Act and that a revision can
also be filed under Section 90 of the Act. He further
contended that this Court cannot sit as an appellate
court to re-evaluate the findings of the RTA and,
therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the appeals.
7. Upon considering the rival submissions
and perusing the record, including the impugned order
and the notice issued by the respondent-RTA, it is not
in dispute that the respondent-RTA issued Ext.P2
e-challan in both cases. Along with the challan,
CNR : KLHC011046972024
2026:KER:52365
WA NOS. 651 & 655 OF 2024
11
show-cause notice as per Ext.P2(a) was issued, calling
for an explanation, which the appellants duly
submitted within 90 days. Admittedly, the respondents
conducted an enquiry and passed an order as per
Ext.P14, invoking the provisions of Section 86 of the
Act.
8. The learned counsel strenuously
contended that Rule 167 prescribes that the
authorities have to wait for the decision of the
competent court; until such a final judicial
determination is made, they cannot invoke the
provisions of Section 86 of the Act.
9. We have perused Section 86 of the Act,
which empowers the transport authority to suspend or
cancel a permit, if breach of any conditions specified
under Section 84 is established. Admittedly, an e-
challan was issued as per Ext.P2 directing the
CNR : KLHC011046972024
2026:KER:52365
WA NOS. 651 & 655 OF 2024
12
payment of a fine of Rs.10,000/-, and a show-cause
notice was simultaneously issued as per Ext.P2(a)
calling for an explanation. Accordingly, the appellants
submitted their explanation, but the same was not
found satisfactory by the respondents. Therefore, by
invoking the provisions of Section 86 of the Act, the
authorities suspended the permit.
10. The proviso to Section 86 explicitly
mandates that before a permit is cancelled or
suspended, an opportunity must be given to the holder
of the permit to furnish an explanation. In terms of the
proviso to Section 86, the appellants submitted the
explanation. Thereafter, the authority considered the
explanation, passed Ext.P14 order, and subsequently
directed the appellants to pay the fine. Therefore, the
statutory scheme established under Rule 167 is two-
fold: the first component governs the action taken by
CNR : KLHC011046972024
2026:KER:52365
WA NOS. 651 & 655 OF 2024
13
the police officer in issuing and filing the challan, while
the second component pertains to the transport
authority exercising its independent powers under the
Rules to take action and issue the challan. The two
must not be confused; it is Rule 167(5) stipulating that
a challan issued under sub-rule (1) or (2) must be
disposed of within ninety days from its date of
issuance, whether in physical or electronic form,
except in cases where the offences have been formally
instituted for prosecution before a Court.
11. The present case does not fall within
the exception of an offense instituted for prosecution
by a Court. Such an exception would only apply if the
individuals were involved in any criminal proceedings
such as accident cases under Sections 279, 337, 338,
or 304A of the IPC, where the authority is statutorily
bound to await the decision of the Court. In the
CNR : KLHC011046972024
2026:KER:52365
WA NOS. 651 & 655 OF 2024
14
absence of such criminal prosecution, the transport
authority remains free to proceed in accordance with
Section 86 of the Act. Therefore, the question of
awaiting a final decision from a prosecution court, as
contemplated under Sub-rule (5) of Rule 167 of the
CMV Rules, does not arise in the instant case. On the
other hand, the action taken by the authority under
Section 86 is appealable under Section 89 of the Act,
and a revision petition can also be preferred under
Section 90 of the Act.
12. Such being the case, the learned Single
Judge, upon considering the contentions of the
appellants, has rightly dismissed the writ petitions and
granted liberty to the appellants to approach the
competent appellate forum.
13. Therefore, we do not find any error in
the impugned order warranting interference.
CNR : KLHC011046972024
2026:KER:52365
WA NOS. 651 & 655 OF 2024
15
Accordingly, both the appeals are hereby
dismissed.
Sd/-
K. NATARAJAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
JOHNSON JOHN, JUDGE
Mn
CNR : KLHC011046972024
2026:KER:52365
WA NOS. 651 & 655 OF 2024
16
APPENDIX OF WA NO. 651 OF 2024
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
Annexure R2(a) Detailed chart of the traffic
violations committed by each of the
stage carriages
CNR : KLHC011046972024
2026:KER:52365
WA NOS. 651 & 655 OF 2024
17
APPENDIX OF WA NO. 655 OF 2024
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1. TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 8.10.25 RELATING TO
2ND APPELLANT
