Kerala High Court
Suresh vs The Secretary on 26 May, 2014
Bench: Manjula Chellur, P.R.Ramachandra Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2014/5TH JYAISHTA, 1936
WA.No. 708 of 2014 ()
------------------------------
WP(C) 4158/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA
---------
APPELLANT(ADDL.3RD RESPONDENT):
--------------------------------------------------------
SURESH, S/O.T.BALACHANDRAN,
VIGNESH ILLAM, 100 FEET ROAD
SEKHARAPURAM POST, PALAKKAD.
BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT 1 & 2/PETITIONER R4 IN WPC.:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
PALAKKAD, PIN-678001.
2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN-678001.
3. MURALIDHARAN.K.,
S/O.KRISHNAN, MALMANDAM HOUSE, AKATHETHARA P.O.,
PALAKKAD-678008.
4. P.RADHAKRISHNAN,
S/O.PONNUMANI, RESIDING AT 1/461, ANURAG HOUSE,
AKATHETHARA, DHONI P.O.,
PALAKKAD-678009 (ADDL.R4 IMPLEADED)
BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.I.DAVIS
BY SMT.ASHA K.SHENOY
BY SRI.G.HARIHARAN
BY SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-05-2014, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BP
Manjula Chellur, C.J. & P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.
----------------------------
W.A. No.708 OF 2014
----------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of May, 2014
JUDGMENT
Ramachandra Menon, J.
This appeal is against the judgment dated 31.03.2014 whereby the impugned order Ext.P3 under challenge in writ petition was set aside and the matter was directed to reconsider by 2nd respondent for fresh consideration after obtaining report from Field Officer with respondent to the modified route proposed under the relevant provisions of law.
2. The case of the writ petitioner was that his application for regular permit was rejected as per Ext.P3 order stating that granting of regular permit is not feasible as the particular U-turn was not possible to be negotiated especially for a stage carriage. Many a contention was received on the part of the petitioner. Petitioner wants to operate the said route by plying a mini bus. In the course of further proceedings, an Advocate Commissioner came to be appointed, who also made some suggestions. Some of the interested parties got impleaded W.A. No. 708 of 2014 -:2:- in the party array. After hearing both the sides, the Court observed that an alternative route for granting regular permit, particularly when the route and area was not capable of catering to the needs of general public. It was accordingly directed that the matter be reconsidered. This order is under challenge at the instance of 3rd respondent to the Writ Petition stating that no stage carriage service could be operated in the particular route because of the typography and U-turn involved therein which otherwise resulted in acute traffic block.
3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned Government Pleader as well.
4. After hearing this Court finds that the order passed by learned Single Judge is only to the effect that the matter to be reconsidered. In the light of the report of the Advocate Commissioner with reference to the actual facts and figures, this Court finds it as a fit case to call for any interference so as to unsettle the equilibrium and the verdict passed by learned Single Judge. We make it clear that the 2nd respondent shall consider W.A. No. 708 of 2014 -:3:- the matter afresh after hearing the parties concerned. This shall be done in accordance with the relevant provisions of law.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice.
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, Judge.
ttb/27/05