Kerala High Court
Kerala State Road Transport ... vs The Regional Transport Authority on 11 December, 1975
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/27TH KARTHIKA, 1936
WP(C).No. 3043 of 2012 (E)
------------------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-----------------------
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-23,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
P. SURESH KUMAR.
BY ADVS.SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC,KSRTC
SRI.P.C.CHACKO, SC, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN.
RESPONDENT(S):
-------------------------
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, OFFICE OF THE RTA,
THIRVANATHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. AJAYAKUMAR K.,
'KARTHIKA', KARAKULAM P.O., NEDUMANGAD VIA.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695 001.
R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJU MEENATTOOR
R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
18-11-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
msv/
WP(C).No. 3043 of 2012 (E)
--------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:
--------------------------------------
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. 41240/TB3/71/PW
DATED 11-12-1975 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P)NO. 107/94/PW&T DATED 24-11-1994 ISSUED BY
THE GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P)NO. 108/94/PW&T DATED 24-11-1994 ISSUED BY
THE GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE AGENDA ITEM NO. 72 OF THE MEETING OF THE
1ST RESPONDENT HELD ON 23-06-2010.
EXHIBIT P4(a): TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 23-06-2010 FILED BY THE
DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY.
EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PORTION OF THE DECISION OF THE
RESPONDENT DATED 23-06-2010 PERTAINING TO EXT. P4 AGENDA.
EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12-09-2011 IN M.V.A.A. 323/2010 OF
THE LEARNED STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 8.11.2012.
EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
DATED 8.11.2012.
EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH SHOWING THE LIE OF THE
EXISTING ROUTE AS WELL AS THE VARIED ROUTE.
EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED 24.11.1994 ISSUED BY THE
GOVERNMENT VIDE NO.SRO.NO.1621.94.
EXHIBIT P11: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.3.2013 IN WP(C) NO.6768/2013
OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P12: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.3.2013 IN
WP(C) NO.28122/2012 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:
-----------------------------------------
ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF THE PREAMBLE ADOPTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN
PURSUANCE TO EXT.P3 NOTIFICATION.
Msv/
-2-
-2-
WP(C).No. 3043 of 2012 (E)
-------------------------------------
ANNEXURE B: TRUE COPIES OF THE SET OF TIMINGS FIXED FOR 111 PRIVATE STAGE
CARRIAGE BUSES IN THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY.
ANNEXURE C: TRUE COPY OF THE ROUTE MAP OF POONTHURA A.K.G. NAGAR.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE.
Msv/
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C).No. 3043 of 2012
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated 18th November, 2014
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is aggrieved with Ext.P6 order passed in an appeal filed by the 2nd respondent herein. The 2nd respondent had sought for variation of extension of 5.1 Kms from AKG Nagar to Karakulam Junction and the same was rejected by Ext.P5, since variation, according to the RTA, would adversely affect the travelling public. Ext.P6 remanded the matter. The petitioner KSRTC submits that the KSRTC was not made a party. KSRTC is interested in the matter since there is overlapping of the route. There is a controversy as to what is the overlapping permitted as per the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and as per the Scheme. This definitely, has to be looked into by the 1st respondent. Hence, on the 1st respondent being approached by the 2nd respondent after issuing WP(C).3043/12 2 notice to the KSRTC and affording them an opportunity for hearing, the matter shall be considered afresh de hors Exts.P5 and P6.
The writ petition is disposed of, leaving open the contentions of both parties to be urged before the authority. Since the operations are continued by the 2nd respondent despite the pendency of the writ petition, the same shall be continued till orders are passed by the 1st respondent.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN Judge Mrcs //True Copy//