Kerala High Court
Haridas P. Ravindran vs S. Shanavas on 13 October, 2020
Author: S. Manikumar
Bench: S.Manikumar, Shaji P.Chaly
Con.Case(C).No.1447 OF 2020 -1-
IN WA. 301 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 21ST ASWINA, 1942
Con.Case(C).No.1447 OF 2020 IN WA. 301 OF 2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WA 301/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/S:
1 HARIDAS P. RAVINDRAN
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O. RAVINDRAN, PERINGANNUR HOUSE, PADUKKAD, VIYYUR
P.O TRICHUR
2 SAHADEVAN,
MULANGATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PONNUKARA P.O, PUTHUR,
TRICHUR
3 SUBASH
CHERIYAKATH HOUSE, NETTISSERY P.O, TRICHUR.
4 DILEEP KUMAR,
POOVATHINGAL HOUSE, ARIMBOOR P.O, TRICHUR.
5 RANJITH
PENATH HOUSE, AMBAKKAD, PUZHAKKAL, TRICHUR.
6 K.K GOPI,
KARATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, VELLANIKKARA, CHIRAKKAKOD,
TRICHUR
7 CICILY,
PZAHEDATHU HOUSE, ANCHERY P.O, TRICHUR
8 BABU P.S,
POYYARA HOUSE, MADAKKATHARA P.O, TRICHUR
9 APPU SANTHOSH,
THARAYIL HOUSE, OLLUKKARA P.O, TRICHUR
Con.Case(C).No.1447 OF 2020 -2-
IN WA. 301 of 2020
10 JISHNU M.B,
MUKKOOTTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHANOTH, PATTIKKAD,
TRICHUR
11 ARUN V.S,
VELLAMKUNNEL HOUSE, ERAVIMANGALAM P.O, TRICHUR
12 SAJITHA,
VALIYAPURAKKAL HOUSE, EREAVIMANGALAM P.O, TRICHUR
13 PRASANTH M.A
MUNDAYOORVALAPPIL HOUSE, AMALA NAGAR P.O,
MUTHUVARA, TRICHUR
14 JAYESH,
VADAKKUMTHULLY HOUSE, PARAKKAD, TRICHUR
15 PRAVEEN P.B,
PEDIKKATTUPARAMIL HOUSE, KANATTUKARA P.O, TRICHUR
16 ANSON,
CHAIPPILAN HOUSE, CHITTILAPILLY , TRICHUR
17 MAJEED,
PERUBILAI HOUSE, VADOOKKARA P.O, TRICHUR
18 SHAJI V.P,
VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHIYYARAM P.O, TRICHUR
19 SANDHYA,
CHEMMANGATTUVALAPPIL HOUSE, PERMANGALAM P.O,
TRICHUR
20 ARUN C.U
CHOLAKKAL HOUSE, KALLIDUKKU, CHUVANNAMANNU P.O,
TRICHUR.
21 KUTTAN P.A,
PUTHENPURAKKAL HOUSE, OLLUKKARA P.O, PARAVATTANI,
TRICHUR
22 NIKHIL ROY,
THATTIL HOUSE, PULLAZHY P.O, TRICHUR.
BY ADV. SRI.P.K.ANIL
Con.Case(C).No.1447 OF 2020 -3-
IN WA. 301 of 2020
RESPONDENT/S:
S. SHANAVAS
(AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, CIVIL STATION,
AYYANTHOLE P.O, THRISSUR 680 003.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR, SPL. GP FPR RESPONDENT
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 13.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Con.Case(C).No.1447 OF 2020 -4-
IN WA. 301 of 2020
JUDGMENT
S. Manikumar, C.J.
On 05.10.2020, we passed the following order:-
"On this day, when the contempt petition came up for further hearing, Mr.P.Santhosh Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader submitted that since the date of declaration of lockdown in March 2020, no meeting of the Regional Transport Authority has been convened. However, having regard to the directions issued by this court in W.A.No.301 of 2020, in terms of Rule 130 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, papers would be circulated to the members of the Regional Transport Authority along with the application form and accordingly, orders will be passed within one week from today. He submitted that the District Collector, Thrissur was also in quarantine and therefore, orders could not be passed in time.
Though Mr.P.K.Anil, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that ever since the declaration of lockdown, several applications have been considered for grant of permit and therefore, insisted statutory notice be issued under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1972, we are not inclined to do so. On the contra, accepting the submission of the learned Con.Case(C).No.1447 OF 2020 -5- IN WA. 301 of 2020 Special Government Pleader, we direct the Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur (respondent herein) to comply with the directions of this court within a week from today."
2. On this day, when the matter came up for further hearing, referring to an order passed under Rule 130 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1959 by the Chairman and Members of the Regional Transport Authority, by circulation, Mr. P. Santhosh Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader submitted that judgment of this Court in W. A. No. 301 of 2020 dated 26.02.2020, has been complied with in letter and spirit. He further submitted that request of the petitioners was considered on the individual merit of each case and accordingly, variation of permit sought for has been rejected. In so far as the 1 st petitioner Sri. Haridas P. Ravindran and some others are concerned, Mr. P. Santosh Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader submitted that petitioner therein and some others referred to in the order of the Regional Transport Authority have not even submitted applications for variation of permit.
3. Per contra, Mr. P. K. Anil, learned counsel for the contempt petitioners submitted that variation of permits has been granted to others.
Con.Case(C).No.1447 OF 2020 -6-IN WA. 301 of 2020
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
5. Abstract from the proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur by circular is extracted hereunder:-
"ABSTRACT FROM THE PROCEEDINGS OF RTA THRISSUR ARRIVED AT BY CIRCULATION U/R 130 OF KMV RULES 1989 Present :
1. Sri Shanavas S. IAS, District Collector (Chairman-RTA Thrissur)
2. Sri Viswanath R. IPS District Police Chief, Thrissur (Member- RTA Thrissur)
3. Sri Sasikumar A Deputy Transport Commissioner, CZ1, Thrissur (Member --RTA Thrissur) Agenda :A) To peruse the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court in WA No.301 of 2020 dated 26.02.2020 Agenda: B) To consider the applications for variation of permit so as to change the parking place as detailed below Petitioners Parking place Variation of permit Subhash Marathakkara (gp) East fort auto stand Dileep kumar Sobha city (gp) Ayyanthole civil station K K Gopi Chirakkacode Paravattani chungam auto stand Cicily Poochatty (gp) Jubilee Mission Hospital auto stand Con.Case(C).No.1447 OF 2020 -7- IN WA. 301 of 2020 Babu P S Vellanikkara (gp) Mannuthy Centre Appu Sobha city (gp) Heart Hospital auto Santhosh stand Sajitha Poochatty Jubilee Mission Hospital auto stand Prasanth M A Amala Ponkunnam auto stand Jayesh Kunnathagadi Ayyanthole civil station Praveen P B Sobha city (gp) Punkunnam auto stand Anson Sobha city (gp) Ayyanthole civil station Shaji V P Marathakkara (gp) Heart Hospital auto stand Sandhya Peramangalam Palli Aswini Hospital auto stand Kuttan P A Sobha city (gp) Paravattani chungam auto stand Nikhil Tony Manakody (gp) West fort auto stand Read Judement of Hon'ble High Court in wpc 26375/2019 dated 03.10.2019 and WA No.301/2020 dated 26.02.2020 Decision A: Perused the Judgement of the Hon: High Court in WA No.301/2020.
B: Reconsidered the applications in compliance to the Judgement in WANo. 301 / 2020. The Hon: High Court has set aside the positive directions in WP(C) 26375/2019 and directed the R.T.A. to reconsider the applications in accordance with the statutory provisions and pass orders. WP(C) 26375/2019 was jointly filed by 22 petitioners. Out of the 22 petitioners, only 15 petitioners Con.Case(C).No.1447 OF 2020 -8- IN WA. 301 of 2020 has filed applications for variation of permit.
It is reported that as of now about 4940 autorickshaws are plying within the city limits. In addition to these, autorickshaws plying in the newly added panchayath areas to the corporation area are also now coming into the corporation limits. About 10,000 autorickshaws are now plying in the corporation limits. Almost all these autorickshaws are mainly choosing the city limits for their operation resulting acute traffic congestion in the city beyond the control of Enforcement Agencies. The Police Authorities had also reported that there is no suitable parking space for all the autorickshaws which had been granted with permits to operate within City limit and further grant of permits with parking places within City limits will aggrevate the traffic congestion. They recommended not to grant further permits within city limits.
Hon'ble Court in the decision reported in Rajesh VS Secretary, RTA and another reported in 2014(3) KLT 341 held that while considering the applications for contract carriage permits, the authority should take into account the need for public transport, number of roads and conditions of the said roads, the traffic congestion caused by indiscriminate parking and so on and so forth. This authority had taken a decision in its meeting held on 05/09/2019, not to grant further permits with parking place in city limits.
R.T.A. has to primarily look into relevant factors like road safety, traffic, congestion, traffic regulation etc. of an area, before Con.Case(C).No.1447 OF 2020 -9- IN WA. 301 of 2020 considering an application for change in parking place to that area.
Considered these applications individually on merits.
1.
Name of the Registration No. Present parking Variation
petitioner place applied for
Subash KL 35 G 3720 Marathakkara East Fort
(Petitioner
No.3)
The petitioner has applied for change of parking place from Marathakkara (Panchayath area) to East Fort (Corporation area). As per the report of Asst. Commissioner of Police, at present 185 Numbers of Auto Rickshaws are allowed parking place as East Fort. It is reported that there is no suitable parking place for all the Auto Rickshaws which had been granted with permits to operate within city limits and further grant of permits with parking place within City limits will aggravate the traffic conditions and recommended not to grant further permits within city limits. Hence this authority feels that there is no need to allow variation of permit as applied for by the permit holder of autorickshaw KL 35 G 3720 is rejected.
2.
Name of the Registration No. Present parking Variation applied
petitioner place for
Dileepkumar KL 08 BL 6299 Sobha City Ayyanthole Civil
(Petitioner
Station
No.4)
Con.Case(C).No.1447 OF 2020 -10-
IN WA. 301 of 2020
The petitioner has applied for change of parking place from Sobha City (Panchayath area) to Ayyanthole Civil Station (Corporation area). As per the report of Asst. Commissioner of Police, at present more than 381 Numbers of Auto Rickshaws are allowed parking place as Ayyanthole Civil Station. It is reported that there is no suitable parking place for all the Auto Rickshaws which had been granted with permits to operate within city limits and further grant of permits with parking place within City limits will aggravate the traffic conditions and recommended not to grant further permits within city limits. Hence this authority feels that there is no need to allow variation of permit as applied for by the permit holder of autorickshaw KL 08 BL 6299 is rejected.
3.
Name of the Registration No. Present parking Variation
petitioner place applied for
K. K. Gopi KL 08 AM 2577 Chirakkakode Paravattani
(Petitioner chungam auto
No.6) stand
The petitioner has applied for change of parking place from Chirakkakode (Panchayath area) to Paravattani chungam auto stand (Corporation area). As per the report of Asst. Commissioner of Police, at present more than 63 Numbers of Auto Rickshaws are allowed parking place as Paravattani chungam auto stand. It is reported that there is no suitable parking place for all the Auto Rickshaws which had been granted with permits to operate within city limits and further grant of permits with parking place within City limits will aggravate the Con.Case(C).No.1447 OF 2020 -11- IN WA. 301 of 2020 traffic conditions and recommended not to grant further permits within city limits. Hence this authority feels that there is no need to allow variation of permit as applied for by the permit holder of autorickshaw KL 08 AM 2577 is rejected.
4.
Name of the Registration No. Present parking Variation
petitioner place applied for
Cicily KL 64 B 7807 Poochatty Jubilee
(Petitioner Mission
No.7) Hospital auto
stand
The petitioner has applied for change of parking place from Poochatty (Panchayath area) to Jubilee Mission Hospital auto stand (Corporation area). As per the report of Asst.Commissioner of Police, at present 39 Numbers of Auto Rickshaws are allowed parking place as Jubilee Mission Hospital auto stand. It is reported that there is no suitable parking place for all the Auto Rickshaws which had been granted with permits to operate within city limits and further grant of permits with parking place within City limits will aggravate the traffic conditions and recommended not to grant further permits within city limits. Hence this authority feels that there is no need to allow variation of permit as applied for by the permit holder of autorickshaw KL 64 B 7807 is rejected.
5.
Name of the Registration Present parking Variation
petitioner No. place applied for
Babu P. S. KL 08 BT 3126 Vellanikkara Mannuthy
(Petitioner No.8) Centre
Con.Case(C).No.1447 OF 2020 -12-
IN WA. 301 of 2020
The petitioner has applied for change of parking place from Vellanikkara (Panchayath area) to Mannuthy Centre (Corporation area). Fee for duplicate permit is seen attached along with the application. At present more than 100 Numbers of Auto Rickshaws are allowed parking place as Mannuthy Centre. It is reported that there is no suitable parking place for all the Auto Rickshaws which had been granted with permits to operate within city limits and further grant of permits with parking place within City limits will aggravate the traffic conditions and recommended not to grant further permits within city limits. Hence this authority feels that there is no need to allow variation of permit as applied for by the permit holder of autorickshaw KL 08 BT 3126 is rejected.
6.
Name of the Registration No. Present parking Variation
petitioner place applied for
Appu KL 41 F 6798 Sobha City Heart
Santhosh Hospital auto
(Petitioner stand
No.9)
The petitioner has applied for change of parking place from Sobha City (Panchayath area) to Heart Hospital auto stand (Corporation area). As per the report of Asst. Commissioner of Police, at present 507 Numbers of Auto Rickshaws are allowed parking place as Heart Hospital auto stand. It is reported that there is no suitable parking place for all the Auto Rickshaws which had been granted with permits to operate within city limits Con.Case(C).No.1447 OF 2020 -13- IN WA. 301 of 2020 and further grant of permits with parking place within City limits will aggravate the traffic conditions and recommended not to grant further permits within city limits. Hence this authority feels that there is no need to allow variation of permit as applied for by the permit holder of autorickshaw KL 41 F 6798 is rejected.
7.
Name of the Registration No. Present parking Variation
petitioner place applied for
Sajitha KL 08 BT 5821 Poochatty Jubilee
(Petitioner Mission
No.12) Hospital auto
stand
The petitioner has applied for change of parking place from Poochatty (Panchayath area) to Jubilee Mission Hospital auto stand (Corporation area). Fee for duplicate permit is seen attached along with the application. As per the report of Asst. Commissioner of Police, at present 39 Numbers of Auto Rickshaws are allowed parking place as Jubilee Mission auto stand. It is reported that there is no suitable parking place for all the Auto Rickshaws which had been granted with permits to operate within city limits and further grant of permits with parking place within City limits will aggravate the traffic conditions and recommended not to grant further permits within city limits. Hence this authority feels that there is no need to allow variation of permit as applied for by the permit holder of autorickshaw KL 08 BT 5821 is rejected.
Con.Case(C).No.1447 OF 2020 -14-IN WA. 301 of 2020
8.
Name of the Registration No. Present parking Variation
petitioner place applied for
Prasanth M. KL 08 BT 5217 Amala Punkunnam
A. (Petitioner auto stand
No.13)
The petitioner has applied for change of parking place from Amala (Panchayath area) to Punkunnam auto stand (Corporation area). Fee for duplicate permit is seen attached along with the application. As per the report of Asst. Commissioner of Police, at present 112 Numbers of Auto Rickshaws are allowed parking place as Punkunnam auto stand. It is reported that there is no suitable parking place for all the Auto Rickshaws which had been granted with permits to operate within city limits and further grant of permits with parking place within City limits will aggravate the traffic conditions and recommended not to grant further permits within city limits. Hence this authority feels that there is no need to allow variation of permit as applied for by the permit holder of autorickshaw KL 08 BT 5217 is rejected.
9.
Name of the Registration No. Present parking Variation
petitioner place applied for
Jayesh KL 46 D 6890 Kunnathangadi Ayyanthole
(Petitioner Civil Station
No.14)
The petitioner has applied for change of parking place from Kunnathangadi (Panchayath area) to Ayyanthole Civil Station (Corporation area). As per the report of Asst.
Con.Case(C).No.1447 OF 2020 -15-IN WA. 301 of 2020 Commissioner of Police, at present 381 Numbers of Auto Rickshaws are allowed parking place as Ayyanthole Civil Station. It is reported that there is no suitable parking place for all the Auto Rickshaws which had been granted with permits to operate within city limits and further grant of permits with parking place within City limits will aggravate the traffic conditions and recommended not to grant further permits within city limits. Hence this authority feels that there is no need to allow variation of permit as applied for by the permit holder of autorickshaw KL 46 D 6890 is rejected.
10.
Name of the Registration No. Present parking Variation
petitioner place applied for
Praveen P. B. KL 08 BN 421 Sobha City Punkunnam
(Petitioner Auto Stand
No.15)
The petitioner has applied for change of parking place from Sobha City (Panchayath area) to Punkunnam auto stand (Corporation area). Fee for duplicate permit is seen attached along with the application. As per the report of Asst. Commissioner of Police, at present 112 Numbers of Auto Rickshaws are allowed parking place as Punkunnam Auto Stand. It is reported that there is no suitable parking place for all the Auto Rickshaws which had been granted with permits to operate within city limits and further grant of permits with parking place within City limits will aggravate the traffic conditions and recommended not to grant further permits within city limits. Hence this authority feels that there is no need to allow variation Con.Case(C).No.1447 OF 2020 -16- IN WA. 301 of 2020 of permit as applied for by the permit holder of autorickshaw KL 08 BN 421 is rejected.
11.
Name of the Registration No. Present parking Variation
petitioner place applied for
Anson KL 08 AX 7800 Sobha City Ayyanthole
(Petitioner Civil Station
No.16)
The petitioner has applied for change of parking place from Sobha City (Panchayath area) to Ayyanthole Civil Station (Corporation area). As per the report of Asst. Commissioner of Police, at present 381 Numbers of Auto Rickshaws are allowed parking place as Ayyanthole Civil Station. It is reported that there is no suitable parking place for all the Auto Rickshaws which had been granted with permits to operate within city limits and further grant of permits with parking place within City limits will aggravate the traffic conditions and recommended not to grant further permits within city limits. Hence this authority feels that there is no need to allow variation of permit as applied for by the permit holder of autorickshaw KL 08 AX 7800 is rejected.
12.
Name of the Registration No. Present parking Variation
petitioner place applied for
Shaji V. P. KL 08 BT 2679 Marathakkara Heart
(Petitioner Hospital auto
No.18) stand
The petitioner has applied for change of parking place from Marathakkara (Panchayath area) to Heart Hospital auto Con.Case(C).No.1447 OF 2020 -17- IN WA. 301 of 2020 stand (Corporation area). Fee for duplicate permit is seen attached along with the application. As per the report of Asst. Commissioner of Police, at present 507 Numbers of Auto Rickshaws are allowed parking place as Heart Hospital auto stand. It is reported that there is no suitable parking place for all the Auto Rickshaws which had been granted with permits to operate within city limits and further grant of permits with parking place within City limits will aggravate the traffic conditions and recommended not to grant further permits within city limits. Hence this authority feels that there is no need to allow variation of permit as applied for by the permit holder of autorickshaw KL 08 BT 2679 is rejected.
13.
Name of the Registration No. Present parking Variation
petitioner place applied for
Sandhya KL 08 AQ 5017 Peramangalam Aswini
(Petitioner Palli Hospital auto
No.19) stand
The petitioner has applied for change of parking place from Peramangalam Palli (Panchayath area) to Aswini Hospital auto stand (Corporation area). As per the report of Asst. Commissioner of Police, at present 22 Numbers of Auto Rickshaws are allowed parking place as Aswini Hospital auto stand. It is reported that there is no suitable parking place for all the Auto Rickshaws which had been granted with permits to operate within city limits and further grant of permits with parking place within City limits will aggravate the traffic conditions and recommended not to grant further permits within Con.Case(C).No.1447 OF 2020 -18- IN WA. 301 of 2020 city limits. Hence this authority feels that there is no need to allow variation of permit as applied for by the permit holder of autorickshaw KL 08 AQ 5017 is rejected.
14.
Name of the Registration No. Present parking Variation
petitioner place applied for
Kuttan P. A. KL 08 BM 1708 Sobha City Paravattani
(Petitioner chungam auto
No.21) stand
The petitioner has applied for change of parking place from Sobha City (Panchayath area) to Paravattani chungam auto stand (Corporation area). As per the report of Asst. Commissioner of Police, at present 63 Numbers of Auto Rickshaws are allowed parking place as Paravattani chungam auto stand. It is reported that there is no suitable parking place for all the Auto Rickshaws which had been granted with permits to operate within city limits and further grant of permits with parking place within City limits will aggravate the traffic conditions and recommended not to grant further permits within city limits. Hence this authority feels that there is no need to allow variation of permit as applied for by the permit holder of autorickshaw KL 08 BM 1708 is rejected.
15.
Name of the Registration No. Present parking Variation
petitioner place applied for
Nikhil Tony KL 08 AL 4045 Manakody West Fort
(Petitioner auto stand
No.22)
Con.Case(C).No.1447 OF 2020 -19-
IN WA. 301 of 2020
The petitioner has applied for change of parking place from Manakody (Panchayath area) to West Fort auto stand (Corporation area). As per the report of Asst. Commissioner of Police, at present 550 Numbers of Auto Rickshaws are allowed parking place as West Fort auto stand. It is reported that there is no suitable parking place for all the Auto Rickshaws which had been granted with permits to operate within city limits and further grant of permits with parking place within City limits will aggravate the traffic conditions and recommended not to grant further permits within city limits. Hence this authority feels that there is no need to allow variation of permit as applied for by the permit holder of autorickshaw KL 08 AL 4045 is rejected.
The following petitioners.
1. Haridas P. Ravindran (Petitioner No. 1)
2. Sahadevan (Petitioner No. 2)
3. Ranjith (Petitioner No. 5)
4. Jishnu M. B. (Petitioner No. 10)
5. Arun V. S. (Petitioner No. 11)
6. Majeed (Petitioner No. 17)
7. Arun C. U. (Petitioner No. 20) Has not submitted applications for variation of permit. Hence not considered.
Sd/-
Chairman and members Con.Case(C).No.1447 OF 2020 -20- IN WA. 301 of 2020 Endt No. G14/6489/2020/R DTD 06.07.2020 Communicated to applicants for information Sd/-
Secretary RTA Thrissur Approved for issue Junior Superintendent"
6. Perusal of the same shows that applications of the petitioners, on record, have been considered on their merits and accordingly variation of permits has been rejected. It has been pointed out that among others, Mr. Haridas P. Ravindran, petitioner No. 1 in this contempt petition has not even filed an application for variation of permit and hence not considered. Though there is some delay in considering the applications as directed earlier, we have taken note of the reasons assigned on 05.10.2020 and accordingly, granted two weeks time, for the RTA to consider the applications submitted, for grant of permit and variation of permit, as the case may be.
7. Having regard to the submissions on either side and the material on record we are of the view that there is no wilful and intentional violation, warranting action under the provisions of Con.Case(C).No.1447 OF 2020 -21- IN WA. 301 of 2020 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Contempt petition is accordingly closed.
Sd/-
S. MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE Eb/14.10.2020 ///TRUE COPY/// P.A. TO JUDGE Con.Case(C).No.1447 OF 2020 -22- IN WA. 301 of 2020 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA 301/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 26-02-2020