Kerala High Court
Johny Pankumpuzha vs The Regional Transport Authority on 19 October, 2010
Author: P.N.Ravindran
Bench: P.N.Ravindran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/24TH JYAISHTA 1934
WP(C).No. 28023 of 2011 (C)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
1. JOHNY PANKUMPUZHA, AGED 59 YEARS,
S/O.THOMAS, PANNAKUZHAKAL HOUSE, KURUVILANGADU.
2. GEORGE THOMAS, AGED 30 YEARS,
S/O.THOMAS, KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KURUVILANGADU.
BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
KOTTAYAM (REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY), KOTTAYAM-686 001.
2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALA-686 575.
3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (PWD), ROADS,
KURUVILANGADU-686 016.
4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KURUVILANGADU-686 016.
5. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS
ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER, PALA-686 575.
* ADDL.R6 TO R10 IMPLEADED
6. MATHEW VARGHESE, VAZHAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
KURAVILANGAD.P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 633.
7. THE PRINCIPAL, DEVEMATHA COLLEGE,
KURAVILANGAD.P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 633.
8. ST.MARY'S HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL,
KURAVILANGAD.P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 633.
CONT...
WP(C).No. 28023 of 2011 (C)
9. ST.MARY'S LOWER PRIMARY BOYS SCHOOL,
REP.BY ITS HEAD MASTER,
KURAVILANGAD.P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 633.
10. ST.MARY'S LOWER PRIMARY GIRLS SCHOOL,
REP.BY ITS HEAD MASTREES,
KURAVILANGAD.P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 633.
* ADDL.R6 TO R10 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER VIDE ORDER DTD.10/11/11 IN
IA.NO.17859/11.
*ADDL.R11 IMPLEADED
11. KURUVILANGAD PAURA SAMITHI,
KURAVILANGAD.P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 633.
REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE MEMBER, M.SATHYADEVAN.
* ADDL.R11 IS IMPLEADED AS PER VIDE ORDER DTD.10/11/11 IN
I.A.NO.17683/11.
* ADDL.R12 & R13 IMPLEADED
12. THE KOTTAYAM DISTRICT BUS OPERATORS ASSOCIATION
ORGANISATION, MEENACHIL TALUK UNIT, REP.
BY ITS SECRETARY, MOOZHIYIL BUILDING, MAIN ROAD,
PALA.
13. P.C.JACOB, AGED 52, S/O.CHACKO,
PULIMOOTIL HOUSE, MARANGOTTUPLLIY P.O.,KOTTAYAM.
* ADDL.R12 & R13 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER VIDE ORDER DTD.16/11/11 IN
I.A.NO.18390/11.
* ADDL. R14 IMPLEADED
14. K.P.VIJAYAN, S/O.PAPPAN, KONATT HOUSE,
KURAVILANGAD.P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
SECRETARY, KERALA SAMSTHANA JANAKEEYA PRATHIRODHA
SAMITHI, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KURAVILANGAD UNIT.
* ADDL.R14 IS IMPLEADED AS PER VIDE ORDER DT.16/11/11 IN
I.A.NO.18394/11.
*ADDL.R15 IMPLEADED
WP(C).No. 28023 of 2011 (C)
15. KURAVILANGAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KURAVILANGAD.P.O.,
KOTTAYAM-686 633., REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT REMA DEVI.
* ADDL.R15 IS IMPLEADED AS PER VIDE ORDER DTD.14/6/12 IN
I.A.NO.18007/11.
BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN
BY ADV. SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI (SR.)
BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
BY ADV. SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR
BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR
BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON
BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON
BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN
BY ADV. SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA
BY ADV. SMT.RASHMI RAVINDRAN
BY ADV. SMT.P.MAYA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
BY SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC,KSRTC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
14-06-2012, ALONG WITH WPC. 31433/2011, WPC. 31567/2011, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
AS
WP(C).No. 28023 of 2011 (C)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:
EXT.P-1: MAP SHOWING THE EXISTING & PROPOSED TRAFFIC
ARRANGEMENT AT KURUVILANGAD TOWN.
EXT.P-2: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 19/10/2010
OBTAINED FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.P-3: COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON
18/6/2010 AT THE OFFICE OF THE RDO, PALA.
EXT.P-4: COPY OF THE DECISION OF RTA, KOTTAYAM
(ORDER NO.C3/6964/2010/K).
EXT.P-5: COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON
15/09/11 AT THE OFFICE OF THE RDO, PALA.
EXT.P-6: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 17/9/11.
EXT.P-7: COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON
24/09/11 AT THE OFFICE OF THE RDO, PALA.
EXT.P-8: COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 27/09/11 FILED BY THE
ATO, PALA, KSRTC.
EXT.P-9: TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 28/09/11 FILED BY THE
1ST PETITIONER.
EXT.P-10: COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE CONVENER,
SAMYUKTHA SAMARA SAMITHI ON 3/10/11.
EXT.P-11: COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT AS APPEARED IN THE
MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 13/10/2011.
WP(C).No. 28023 of 2011 (C)
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXT.R2(A): COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.02/6/2010 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR.
EXT.R2(B): COPY OF THE LIST OF PERSONS WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE MEETING
HELD ON 04/06/2010.
EXT.R2(C): COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.14/6/2010.
EXT.R2(D): COPY OF THE MINUTES OF TRAFFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON
18/6/2010.
EXT.R2(E): COPY OF THE LIST OF THE ATTENDEES OF THE TRAFFIC ADVISORY
COMMITTEE HELD ON 18/6/2010.
EXT.R2(F): COPY OF THE LIST OF THE ATTENDEES OF THE TRAFFIC ADVISORY
COMMITTEE HELD ON 25/6/2010.
EXT.R2(G): COPY OF THE ROAD MAP OF KOTTAYAM TOWN.
EXT.R2(H): COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 4/12/2010.
EXT.R2(I): COPY OF THE LIST OF PARTICIPANTS OF THE MEETING OF THE
TRAFFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE HELD ON 10/12/2010.
EXT.R2(J): COPY OF THE LIST OF THE ATTENDEES OF THE TRAFFIC ADVISORY
COMMITTEE HELD ON 22/1/2011.
EXT.R2(K): COPY OF THE LIST OF THE ATTENDEES OF THE TRAFFIC ADVISORY
COMMITTEE HELD ON 5/8/2011.
EXT.R2(L): COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 5/8/2011.
EXT.R2(M): COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE TRAFFIC ADVISORY
COMMITTEE HELD ON 15/9/2011.
EXT.R2(N): COPY OF THE LIST OF THE ATTENDEES OF THE MEETING OF THE
R.T.A CONVENED ON 24/9/2011.
EXT.R2(O): COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE TRAFFIC ADVISORY
COMMITTEE CONVENED ON 24/9/2011.
EXT.R2(P): COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30/9/2011.
EXT.R6(A): COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 25/06/2010.
EXT.R6(A): COPY OF AUTHORIZATION LETTER DATED 22/9/2011 ALONG WITH
RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON
20/9/2011, REFERRED TO IN THE AFFIDAVIT.
EXT.R6(B): COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 10/12/2010.
CONT..
WP(C).No. 28023 of 2011 (C)
EXT.R6(B): COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 5/8/2011,
REFERRED TO IN THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT.
EXT.R6(C): COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 5/8/2011.
EXT.R6(C): COPY OF THE SKETCH DRAWN BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PUBLIC
WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROADS), REFERRED TO IN THE COUNTER
AFFIDAVIT.
EXT.R6(D): COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 24/9/2011.
EXT.R6(E): COPY OF THE REPORT ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ROAD
DIVISION, KURAVILANGAD DATED 21/11/2011.
EXT.R7(A): COPY OF RESOLUTION NO.XVII(1) DT. 28/10/11 OF KURAVILAGAD
GRAMA PANCHAYATH.
EXT.R7(B): ROAD SKETCH PREPARED BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER OF PWD `
(ROADS), REFERRED TO IN THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT.
EXT.R7(C): COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 21/11/2011 ISSUED BY THE PWD ROAD
SECTION ASSISTANT ENGINEER.
EXT.R7(D): COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT
BY ADV.SATHYADEVAN ON 30/10/2011 AND THE INFORMATION ISSUED
BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER VIDE NO.K 37/04 DATED 8/11/2011.
EXT.R7(E): COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.XVII(1) OF KURUVILANGAD GRAMA
PANCHAYATH, DATED 28/10/2011 VIDE.
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:
ANN.R2(A): COPY OF THE SKETCH OF THE LINK ROAD GIVING DETAILS OF THE
WORK.
/TRUE COPY/
`P.A.TO JUDGE
AS
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
-----------------------------------------
W.P(C).Nos.28023, 31433
and 31567 of 2011
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of June, 2012
JUDGMENT
In these writ petitions the petitioners challenge the decision taken by the Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam, on 11.10.2010 regarding implementation of traffic reforms in Kuravilangad town. They were therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, W.P.(C)No.28023 of 2011 is treated as the main case and unless otherwise mentioned, the documents referred to are those produced and marked therein. The brief facts of the case as discernible from the pleadings are as follows:
2. With a view to ease the traffic congestion in Kuravilangad town, the Kuravilangad Grama Panchayat moved the District Collector, Kottayam, by submitting a representation.
Pursuant thereto, the District Collector, Kottayam convened a meeting in his Chambers on 4.6.2010 and at that meeting, a decision was taken to convene a meeting of the Traffic Advisory Committee for Kuravilangad Taluk on 18.6.2010. The meeting of W.P(C).No.28023 of 2011 and connected cases.
-:2:-the Traffic Advisory Committee was held under the Chairmanship of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pala and a copy of the minutes of that meeting is produced as Ext.P3 in W.P.(C)No.28023 of 2011. That meeting was attended by 34 persons, namely:
1. Sri.Mons Joseph, MLA.
2. Sri.P.C.Radhakrishna Pilla, Circle Inspector, Ettumanoor.
3. Sri.Roy Thomas, Motor Vehicle Inspector, Pala.
4. Smt.Rajeena Beevi (A.E) Roads, Kuravilangad.
5. Sri.B.Sasidharan Nair, Inspector, K.S.R.T.C.
6. Sri.P.C.Kurian, President, Grama Panchayat, Kuravilangad.
7. Sri.Joji C.Abraham, Vice President, Kuravilangad.
8. Smt.Syamala Lakshmanan, Member, Kuravilangad.
9. Smt.Bashy Babu, Member, Kuravilangad
10. Smt.Jessy George, Member, Kuravilangad.
11. Sri.George G.Chenneli, Member, Kuravilangad.
12. Sri.K.C.George, Member, Kuravilangad.
13. Sri.Sreenivasan.K. Member, Kuravilangad.
14. Sri.Mathew Varghese, Bus Passengers Association President.
15. Sri.Jose Pattarumatom, Secretary, Bus Passengers Association
16. Sri.Advocate K.K.Sasikumar, C.P.I.(M).
17. Sri.Thomas, Kannanthara, Kerala Congress (M).
18. Sri.Dantis Alex, Secretary, Private Bus Operators Association.
19. Sri.A.N.Balakrishnan, C.P.I.
20. Sri.C.K.Mathew, Congress.
21. Sri.Thankachan, Kavungal, Congress (I)
22. Sri.P.O.Varkey, Janathadal.
W.P(C).No.28023 of 2011
and connected cases.
-:3:-
23. Sri.Tomy Cyriac, Merchants Association
24. Sri.C.A.Augustin, President, Vyaparavyavasaya Samithi
25. Sri.U.D.Mathai, N.C.P.
26. Sri.Sunny.T.C., Trustees, St.Mary's Ferona Church, Kuravilangad.
27. Rev.Fr.Jose, Maleparambil Vikari, Martha Mariyam Ferona Church, Kuravilangad.
28. Sri.C.R.G.Panicker, President, N.S.S., Kuravilangad.
29. Sri.M.R.Bineesh, President, S.N.D.P., Kuravilangad.
30. Sri.M.M.Devasya, J.S.S.
31. Sri.Jimmichan, Edathinal, Bus Passengers Association
32. Sri.Jos Koyikkal, Bus Passengers Association
33. Sri.Binumon.K.R., Vyaparavyavasaya Samithi.
34. Sri.Sadananda Sankar, C.P.M.
3. At that meeting, a decision was taken to constitute a sub committee consisting of :
1. Sri.P.C.Kurian, President, Grama Panchayat, Kuravilangad.
2. Sri.Joji C.Abraham, Vice President, Kuravilangad.
3. Sri.Advocate K.K.Sasikumar, C.P.I.(M).
4. Sri.George G.Chenneli, Member, Kuravilangad.
5. Sri.Mathew Varghese, Bus Passengers Association President
6. Representatives of Transport/Police/PW Departments The sub committee was authorized to conduct an enquiry, meet on 21.6.2010, deliberate on the issues and submit its report before the Traffic Advisory Committee which was scheduled to meet again on 25.6.2010. Pursuant to the decision evidenced by W.P(C).No.28023 of 2011 and connected cases.-:4:-
Ext.P3, the sub committee conducted an enquiry, met on 21.6.2010, deliberated on the issue and placed its recommendations before the Traffic Advisory Committee, which met on 25.6.2010. The Traffic Advisory Committee considered the report submitted by the sub committee and resolved to forward it to the Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam for consideration. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Pala, the Chairman of the Traffic Advisory Committee thereupon forwarded the papers to the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam, along with his letter dated 14.9.2010. The files were circulated among the members of the Regional Transport Authority on 11.10.2010 and Ext.P4 proceedings was issued. It was stipulated that the recommendations will be implemented after 25.10.2010 to avoid any controversy during the elections. It appears during the relevant time elections to the local authorities were being held in the State of Kerala.
4. For reasons which are not known, Ext.P4 decision of the Regional Transport Authority was not implemented for quite some time. While matters stood thus, the Traffic Advisory Committee met on 5.8.2011 under the Chairmanship of the Revenue W.P(C).No.28023 of 2011 and connected cases.
-:5:-Divisional Officer, Pala. The first petitioner in W.P.(C)No.28023 of 2011 was one among the 36 persons who attended that meeting. At that meeting the decisions reflected in Ext.R2(l) minutes were taken. The only suggestion made by the first petitioner in W.P. (C)No.28083 of 2011 was that the Panchayat should acquire the required lands for the purpose of the bus bay. The Traffic Advisory Committee that met on 5.8.2011 resolved to implement Ext.P4 decision after the Public Works Department completes the related works. The Traffic Advisory Committee thereafter again met on 15.9.2011 and in that meeting the decisions reflected in Ext.P5 minutes were taken. It was inter alia decided that for the purpose of implementing Ext.P4 decision, a trial run would be conducted on 19.9.2011 and thereafter a review meeting will be conducted on 22.9.2011. A decision was also taken to inform the officers of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation in its depots at Kottayam, Pala and Vaikom of the trial run. The trial run was however, held only on 23.9.2011. Consequently, the review meeting of the Traffic Advisory Committee was held only on 24.9.2011. The first petitioner was one among the 67 persons who attended that meeting, as can be seen from Ext.R2(n) W.P(C).No.28023 of 2011 and connected cases.
-:6:-attendance register. In that meeting the decisions reflected in Ext.P7 minutes were taken. Shortly thereafter, the Assistant Transport Officer, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Pala, sent Ext.P8 letter dated 27.9.2011 to the Hon'ble Minister for Transport objecting to the traffic reforms proposed for Kuravilangad town. Along with that letter, a report prepared by Sri.Mathew Joseph, an Inspector of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation pointing out the defects and shortcomings in the proposed traffic reforms was enclosed. The first petitioner thereafter submitted Ext.P9 representation dated 28.9.2011 to the Hon'ble Minister for Transport wherein for the first time he raised a contention that the traffic reforms, which were implemented on 23.9.2011, has led to traffic jams in Kuravilangad town. He also stated in that letter that the traffic reforms are implemented in violation of the decision of the Regional Transport Authority and that the traffic reforms are un- scientific. In that representation he requested the Hon'ble Minister to ensure that traffic reforms are implemented only after the required infrastructure is in place. W.P.(C)No.28023 of 2011 was thereupon filed on 20.10.2011 challenging Ext.P4 and W.P(C).No.28023 of 2011 and connected cases.
-:7:-seeking the following reliefs:-
1. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or such other writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Exhibit P4 and quash the same.
2. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction commanding the 1st respondent not to grant any approval of Ext.P3 or any other proposal for rerouting of stage carriages in Kuravilangad town without first issuing notice and affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and other affected persons.
5. The main contention raised in the writ petition is that the Regional Transport Authority approved the proposals in Ext.P4 by circulation, without notice to the stakeholders and without affording the stakeholders an opportunity to object to the proposals mooted by the Traffic Advisory Committee. It is also contended that the proposals in Ext.P4 cannot be implemented in view of the fact that it was not published in the official gazette. Reliance is placed on section 115 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in support of the said contention. W.P.(C)No.28023 of 2011 was admitted and an interim order staying the operation of Ext.P4 decision taken by the Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam was W.P(C).No.28023 of 2011 and connected cases.
-:8:-passed on 24.10.2011. W.P.(C)Nos.31433 of 2011 and 31567 of 2011 were filed thereafter, on 23.11.2011 and 25.11.2011 respectively.
6. The first petitioner in W.P.(C)No.31433 of 2011 is the Meenachil Taluk Unit of the Kottayam District Bus Operators Organization represented by its Secretary and the second petitioner therein is a stage carriage operator operating a stage carriage service on the route Vaikom - Kunnonni. It is stated that 16 out of the 24 stage carriage operators operating on the sector Pala - Ernakulam and Pala - Vaikom through Kuravilangad town are members of the first petitioner organization. In W.P.(C) No.31433 of 2011 the petitioners challenge the decision taken by the Regional Transport Authority on 11.10.2010 by circulation on the ground that before the said decision was taken, no public notice was given and the petitioners were not afforded an opportunity to object to the proposals mooted by the Traffic Advisory Committee. The petitioners in W.P.(C)No.31433 of 2011 have also stated that if the decision of the Regional Transport Authority is implemented, it would affect the smooth flow of traffic in Kuravilangad town. Though the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.31433 W.P(C).No.28023 of 2011 and connected cases.
-:9:-of 2011 question the decision taken by the Regional Transport Authority on the ground that such a decision should have been taken only after notice and public hearing, they have no case that they were unaware of Ext.P4 proceedings until the traffic reforms were sought to be implemented by conducting a trial run on 23.9.2011. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.31567 of 2011, a former Deputy Superintendent of Police, is a resident of Kuravilangad town, and a member of the Bus Passengers Association, Kuravilangad. He challenges the decision taken by the Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam on 11.10.2010 on the same grounds as raised in W.P.(C) No.28023 of 2011. It is also contended that passengers are entitled to be heard in view of rule 179 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules and therefore, for that reason also, the decision taken by the Regional Transport Authority is liable to be set aside.
7. The second respondent in W.P.(C)No.28023 of 2011 has filed a counter affidavit dated 24.11.2011. In paragraph 5 it is stated that from the initial stage onwards the first petitioner was an active participant in almost all the meetings of the Traffic Advisory Committee of Kuravilangad Taluk, that the impugned W.P(C).No.28023 of 2011 and connected cases.
-:10:-order of the Regional Transport Authority was passed taking into account the long standing demands from all sections of people residing in and around Kuravilangad town including stage carriage operators, autorickshaw drivers, members of the bus passengers association, authorities of schools situated in Kuravilangad town, merchants and local residents, that the whole process started as a result of the submission of a representation before the District Collector, Kottayam, that on receipt of the said representation the District Collector convened a meeting on 4.6.2010 in his Chambers after issuing Ext.R2(a) notice dated 2.6.2010, that the first petitioner had participated in the said meeting and signed the attendance register and at that meeting, a decision was taken to convene a meeting of the Traffic Advisory Committee of Kuravilangad Taluk for considering the various issues highlighted during the meeting. In paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit it is stated that pursuant to thereto, Ext.R2(c) notice dated 14.6.2010 was issued inviting all the stakeholders to attend the meeting of the Traffic Advisory Committee scheduled to be held on 18.6.2010, that all the invitees including the representatives of the bus passengers association participated in that meeting, that W.P(C).No.28023 of 2011 and connected cases.
-:11:-in that meeting a sub committee was constituted, that a meeting of the sub committee was held on 21.6.2010 and thereafter a meeting of the Traffic Advisory Committee was again held on 25.6.2010 and at that meeting, the report submitted by the sub committee constituted on 18.6.2010 was considered, that the first petitioner in W.P.(C)No.28023 of 2011 had attended the meeting of the Traffic Advisory Committee held on 25.6.2010, that as decided in the meeting of the Traffic Advisory Committee held on 25.6.2010 the proposals submitted by the sub committee were scrutinised and thereafter submitted to the Regional Transport Authority for consideration. The counter affidavit proceeds to state that after the Regional Transport Authority took the impugned decision, meetings of the Traffic Advisory Committee were convened on several occasions, that in the meeting held on 10.12.2010 the first petitioner had participated, that in the meeting of the Traffic Advisory Committee held on 22.1.2011, which was presided over by the Additional Tahsildar, Meenachil, besides the first petitioner in W.P.(C)No.28023 of 2011, the President of the Bus Passengers Association had participated, that in the meeting of the Traffic Advisory Committee held on 5.8.2011 W.P(C).No.28023 of 2011 and connected cases.
-:12:-also the first petitioner was present and that apart from the representatives of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, nobody including the first petitioner in W.P.(C)No.28023 of 2011 had raised any objection to the implementation of the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority. Relying on Ext.R2(o) minutes of the meeting of the Traffic Advisory Committee held on 24.9.2011 and Ext.R2(p) letter dated 30.9.2011 sent by the President of the Bus Passengers Association, Kuravilangad, it is contended that all the participants had welcomed the implementation of traffic reforms.
8. Additional respondents 6 to 10 in W.P.(C)No.28023 of 2011 who represent educational institutions in the locality have filed a counter affidavit dated 21.11.2011 inter alia contending that the traffic reforms are beneficial to students studying in the four schools and a college situate by the side of M.C.Road in Kuravilangad town and that the community which is most benefited by the traffic reforms is the student community. It is also contended that the first petitioner who was present in various meetings is not entitled to question the decision taken by the Regional Transport Authority.
W.P(C).No.28023 of 2011 and connected cases.
-:13:-
9. A counter affidavit dated 27.11.2011 has been filed on behalf of the additional 15th respondent, namely, Kuravilangad Grama Panchayat. In paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit the additional 15th respondent has stated that about 25 private bus operators are operating services through Kuravilangad town, that 10 stage carriage services operated by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation are also operating in the same sector, that when the trial run was conducted all the 35 stage carriages took part and operated their services, that even with the existing timings the additional distance could be covered and therefore, not even a single private operator has raised any objection to the implementation of the traffic reforms. As regards the procedure adopted by the Regional Transport Authority in paragraph 15 it is contended that the first petitioner who had a say in the various meetings held before and after the impugned order was passed and had not objected to the traffic reforms approved by the Regional Transport Authority, is estopped from challenging the decision taken by the Regional Transport Authority. In paragraph 16 it is stated that the petitioners who are residents of the Kuravilangad Grama Panchayat were well aware of the proposal W.P(C).No.28023 of 2011 and connected cases.
-:14:-mooted by the members of the Panchayat to introduce traffic reforms. In paragraph 17 of the counter affidavit it is stated that for the purpose of implementing the traffic reforms, the Panchayat has spent about Rs.1,10,000/- from its funds and the Public Works Department has spent Rs.14,00,000/- to shift the electricity posts. It is stated that the implementation of traffic reforms will be beneficial to about 3500 students studying in various educational institutions, that after the new traffic system was implemented, no accident has been reported in Kuravilangad town and that the traffic reforms are convenient and beneficial to the public. As regards the objection raised by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation it is contended that the only objection raised by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation was about the one way traffic through the link road, that if the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation has any grievance regading its timings, it can be redressed by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation itself. In paragraph 19 of the counter affidavit it is stated that though Kuravilangad Grama Panchayat has a population of 19,000, only two of the residents have come forward to oppose implementation of the traffic reforms and that W.P(C).No.28023 of 2011 and connected cases.
-:15:-the writ petition has been filed with ulterior motives.
10. I heard Sri.P.Deepak, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.28023 of 2011, Sri.M.Jithesh Menon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.31433 of 2011 and Sri.N.Reghuraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.31567 of 2011, Smt.M.Maya, learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents, Sri.T.R.Harikumar, learned counsel appearing for additional respondents 6 to 10, Smt.Sumathy Dandapani, learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondents 11 and 15, Sri.K.V.Gopinathan Nair, learned counsel appearing for additional respondents 12 and 13, Sri.Jithesh Menon, learned counsel appearing for additional respondents 16 and 17 and Sri.K.Mohana Kannan, learned counsel appearing for additional respondents 18 and 19 in W.P.(C)No.28023 of 2011. Sri.P.Deepak, Sri.M.Jithesh Menon and Sri.N.Reghuraj, learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners contended that the Regional Transport Authority ought to have issued notice to all the stakeholders, afforded them an opportunity to put forward their objections and taken a decision regarding the implementation of traffic reforms instead of following the W.P(C).No.28023 of 2011 and connected cases.
-:16:-procedure prescribed in rule 130 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. It is contended that the petitioners, who are stakeholders, were denied an opportunity to object to the proposals placed before the Regional Transport Authority by the Traffic Advisory Committee as no public notice was given and the decision was taken by circulation. The learned counsel contended that members of the Regional Transport Authority did not even sit together and discuss the matter and that the papers were only circulated before the impugned order was passed.
11. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents, Smt.Sumathy Dandapani, learned Senior Advocate appearing for additional respondents 11 and 15, Sri.K.V.Gopinathan Nair, learned counsel appearing for additional respondents 12 and 13 and Sri.K.Mohana Kannan, learned counsel appearing for respondents 18 and 19 in W.P.(C)No.28023 of 2011 contended that the petitioners in the three writ petitions have no case that they were unaware of the decision taken by the Regional Transport Authority until the trial run was conducted and therefore, the petitioners who did not choose to challenge the decision taken by the Regional Transport Authority on 11.10.2010 W.P(C).No.28023 of 2011 and connected cases.
-:17:-in time cannot challenge the decision of the Regional Transport Authority, more than an year after it was taken, on the ground that the decision was taken by circulation and not after public notice. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the first petitioner in W.P.(C)No.28023 of 2011 had participated in the meetings of the Traffic Advisory Committee before and after the impugned order of the Regional Transport Authority was passed, that in none of the meetings had he raised an objection that the procedure adopted by the Regional Transport Authority was not proper, that representatives of the Bus Operators Association and Bus Passengers Association had also attended the meetings of the Traffic Advisory Committee before and after the impugned order was passed, that all the parties were aware of the decision taken by the Regional Transport Authority way back on 11.10.2010 to introduce traffic reforms in Kuravilangad town and therefore, the petitioners cannot after an year had passed, challenge the decision of the Regional Transport Authority at a stage when steps were taken to implement it, on the ground that they had no opportunity to object to the proposals mooted by the Traffic Advisory Committee. W.P(C).No.28023 of 2011 and connected cases.
-:18:-The learned counsel for the respondents contended that in the meetings of the Traffic Advisory Committee which were held before the impugned order of the Regional Transport Authority was passed, the entire issues were discussed and the petitioners, who had not objected to the proposals, cannot successfully challenge the impugned order at this distance of time.
12. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel on either side. The main ground on which the petitioners challenge the impugned order of the Regional Transport Authority is that no public notice was given before the said order was passed. None of the petitioners have a case that they were unaware of the impugned order before the trial run was conducted on 23.9.2011. The pleadings and the materials on record disclose that the first petitioner in W.P.(C)No.28023 of 2011 had attended the meeting of the Traffic Advisory Committee held on 25.6.2010 before the impugned decision was taken and the meetings held thereafter on 10.12.2010, 5.8.2011 and 24.9.2011 and that he had no objection whatsoever to the various proposals mooted by different persons and bodies. The petitioners also do not question the need for introducing traffic W.P(C).No.28023 of 2011 and connected cases.
-:19:-reforms. The minutes of the meetings which are on record also disclose that representatives of the bus passengers association and bus operators association had participated in the meetings of the Traffic Advisory Committee prior to and after the impugned decision was taken by the Regional Transport Authority. The bus passengers association or the bus operators association had no objection to the introduction of the traffic reforms when the issue was discussed in the meetings of the Traffic Advisory Committee on 25.6.2010. It was that proposal that was approved by the Regional Transport Authority by circulation on 11.10.2010. However, the decision taken by the Regional Transport Authority was not implemented immediately thereafter for the reason that elections to the local authority were in progress. It appears thereafter also for quite some time, the traffic reforms could not be implemented due to various works which were being carried out by the Public Works Department. The traffic reforms which were approved by the Regional Transport Authority by the impugned order could be implemented only in September, 2011. During the interregnum none of the petitioners had raised any objection about the implementation of traffic reforms. Even now W.P(C).No.28023 of 2011 and connected cases.
-:20:-there is no concrete material on record to explain the reason why the petitioners are objecting to the traffic reforms. The technical feasibility is not questioned. The petitioners do not also contend that traffic reforms are not necessary. They also do not have any alternate proposal. The only ground on which the petitioners attack the impugned order is that the procedure adopted is not legal. In my opinion the petitioners who were aware of the meetings of the Traffic Advisory Committee that took place on 25.6.2010, which led to the impugned decision being taken on 11.10.2010 and had not objected to any of the proposals and had no objection to the impugned order, till the traffic reforms were sought to be implemented, cannot at this distance of time be heard to contend that as a result of the procedure adopted by the Regional Transport Authority they have been put to any prejudice. As stated earlier, the petitioners have not been able to show that any real prejudice is caused to them on account of the failure of the Regional Transport Authority to issue public notice or that if notice had been issued, they would have been in a position to successfully object to the introduction of the traffic reforms.
13. It is evident from the minutes of the various meetings of W.P(C).No.28023 of 2011 and connected cases.
-:21:-the Traffic Advisory Committee, which are on record, that there was a long standing demand for traffic reforms in Kuravilangad town. In such circumstances as no real prejudice has been caused to the petitioners and none of the other stakeholders have chosen to challenge the decision of the Regional Transport Authority before this Court or before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in time by filing a revision petition, I am of the opinion that it would not be just or proper, more than a year after the impugned decision was taken, to set it aside on a technical ground that it was taken by circulation and not by public notice. There is also yet another aspect. It was only after W.P.(C)No.28023 of 2011 was filed, notice was ordered and an interim order was passed therein that the other two writ petitions were filed. The first petitioner in W.P.(C)No.28023 of 2011 had admittedly participated in various meetings of the Traffic Advisory Committee before and after the impugned decision was taken. For reasons best known to him he did not at that stage raise a contention that the decision taken by the Regional Transport Authority was without following the prescribed procedure or that as a result thereof he and other members of the community are prejudiced. W.P(C).No.28023 of 2011 and connected cases.
-:22:-It is evident from the conduct of the petitioners that they have come to this Court at a belated stage challenging the impugned decision, without any justification and no real grievance.
I accordingly hold that the challenge to the impugned order is without any merit. The writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge.
ahg.
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
---------------------------
W.P(C).Nos.28023, 31433 and 31567 of 2011
----------------------------
JUDGMENT 14th June, 2012