Kerala High Court
Shajan P vs Ksrtc on 18 August, 2025
Author: T.R.Ravi
Bench: T.R.Ravi
2025:KER:61959
WP(C) NO. 16596 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 27TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 16596 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
SHAJAN P
AGED 49 YEARS, CONDUCTOR GRADE 2, CHALAKUDY DEPOT,
KSRTC, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR, PIN - 680307.
BY ADVS.
SRI.ANIL KUMAR M.SIVARAMAN
SMT.LAKSHMISREE P.S.
RESPONDENTS:
1 KSRTC
REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695023.
2 CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT
BHAVAN, FORT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695023.
BY ADVS.
SMT.VINEETHA BOSE
SRI.DEEPU THANKAN, SC, KSRTC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 18.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:61959
WP(C) NO. 16596 OF 2025
2
T.R. RAVI, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.16596 of 2025
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of August, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is aggrieved by the actions initiated on the basis of breath analyser test. The contention is that breath analyser test is not conclusive proof of having consumed alcohol and that a blood test is also required before finalising that a person has consumed alcohol while attending duty. These are not aspects on which this Court should be interfering in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. These are purely administrative functions and orders are issued for the purpose of safety of the public which is at any rate much more important and the question whether a breath analyser test is conclusive. The test is not conducted for the purpose of punishing employees for rash and negligent driving, but is 2025:KER:61959 WP(C) NO. 16596 OF 2025 3 rather a preventive measure to ensure that nothing untoward will happen because of any content of alcohol in the body of the employee who is involved in driving public transport vehicles. The petitioner has preferred Ext.P3 representation and seeks an early disposal of the same. Ext.P3 is seen to have been preferred by an organisation and the petitioner claims to be a member of such an organisation.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3, if necessary after hearing a representative of the organisation which the petitioner represents and pass orders.
Sd/-
T.R.RAVI JUDGE mpm 2025:KER:61959 WP(C) NO. 16596 OF 2025 4 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16596/2025 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17/3/2025 IN WP(C) NO. 10225 OF 2025 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. VLC4- 009482/19 DATED 17/12/2020 ISSUED BY THE CMD OF KSRTC.
Exhibit P3 A COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ORGANISATION DATED 25/10/2024.
Exhibit P4 A COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO. VO/4/2025 DATED 20/2/2025 ISSUED BY THE CMD OF KSRTC.
Exhibit P5 A COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER NO. SOO1- VL05/22/2025-VIG-KSRTC-HQ DATED 15/02/2025.
Exhibit P6 A COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER NO. SOO1- VL04/2/2025-VIG-KSRTC-HQ DATED 10/01/2025.
Exhibit P7 A COPY OF AMENDED POLICY GUIDELINE ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS NO. 99/H/7/C. RLY DATED 15/12/2003.
Exhibit P8 A COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT PUBLISHED ON AN ONLINE NEWS DATED 4/15/2025.
Exhibit P9 A COPY OF THE REPORT PUBLISHED THROUGH 24 NEWS CHANNEL DATED 11/4/2025.