Kerala High Court
The Vorkady Grama Panchayat vs Keshava Bhatt C on 24 April, 2009
Author: Pius C.Kuriakose
Bench: Pius C.Kuriakose
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 937 of 2007(E)
1. THE VORKADY GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KESHAVA BHATT C., S/O. MAHABELA BHATT,
... Respondent
2. THE R.T.A.,
3. THE R.T.O.,
4. JAYALAKSHMI (FORMER PRESIDENT),
For Petitioner :SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
For Respondent :SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :24/04/2009
O R D E R
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
R.P.No.937/ 2007 IN W.P.(c).No. 7811/2006 &
I.A.NO.707/2007 IN R.P.NO.937/2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 24th day of April , 2009
ORDER
The Vorkady Grama Panchayat, the first respondent in the writ petition has filed R.P.No. 937/2007 seeking a review of this court's judgment dated 06/02/2007 directing the Panchayat to take necessary action for shifting the bus stop situated in Majir Palla/Vorkady to a new place as per Ext.P7 order passed by the Regional Transport Authority. It was directed that Ext.P7 order shall be implemented by the Panchayat at the earliest and at any rate within two months of receiving copy of the judgment. The review petition was out of time and C.M.Appl.No. 416/2007 was filed seeking condonation of the delay caused in the matter of filing the review.
2. On considering the counter affidavit filed by the writ petitioner- the first respondent, the C.M.Application was allowed on condition that the Panchayat pays a sum of Rs. 500/- as cost to the writ petitioner and a like amount to the High Court Legal Services R.P.No.937/2007 2 Committee within three weeks from 01/11/2007. It was stated that if payments are not made as above, the delay petition will stand dismissed. Now I.A.No. 707/2007 has been filed by the review petitioner Panchayat seeking review of the order dated 01/11/2007 in the application for condonation of delay ( C.M.Appl.No. 416/2007) and extend the time granted to the Panchayat for making payment till 20/12/2007.
3. A very serious counter affidavit has been filed by the writ petitioner to this I.A. I have heard the submissions of Sri.Bechu Kurian Thomas, learned counsel for the review petitioner in the I.A. and those of Smt. Sumathy Dandapani, learned senior counsel for the first respondent/ writ petitioner. Sri.Bechu Kurian Thomas would argue that the Panchayat was unable to place before this court several vital factual aspects which would have convinced this court that Ext.P7 order of the Regional Transport Authority is not worthy of being implemented. Learned counsel submitted that Ext.P7 order was passed as a non-speaking order without considering the facts situation. The said order was passed without obtaining concurrence of the Panchayat R.P.No.937/2007 3 and in violation of the Motor Vehicle Rules. He submitted that Ext.P7 order is a vague order since no specific place has been mentioned in that order, as to where the new bus stop should be located. Learned counsel submitted that Ext.A2 petition was also filed before the RTA for reconsideration of Ext.P7 order and the same is pending before the RTA. Subsequently, Annexure 4 petition was also filed before the RTA for reconsideration of Ext.P7. It will be highly prejudicial to the public interest, if Ext.P7 is implemented even before the RTA takes decision on Annexures A2 and A4.
4. Smt.Sumathy Dandapani, learned senior counsel would strongly oppose the submissions of Sri.Bechu Kurian Thomas on the basis of the counter affidavits submitted by the writ petitioner both in the Review Petition as well as in I.A.No. 707/2007. Learned senior counsel would place strong reliance on the judgment of this court in Unni Pillai v. Sreedharan ( 1959 KLT 993) and also the judgment of this court in Vijayamma v. Radhamma and others ( 2001 (1) KLJ 36) in support of the proposition that I.A.No. 707/2006 is not maintainable in law and the further proposition that aid of law is not to be extended R.P.No.937/2007 4 to a party who has been grossly negligent in prosecuting the case. Smt.Sumathy Dandapani also relied on the judgment of this court in Kallyani Amma v. Kunhikrishnan ( 1971 KLT 309) to argue that I.A.No.707/2007 is not maintainable since the order dated 01/11/2007 has worked out by itself.
5. Sri.Bechu Kurian Thomas would in reply submit that Ext.P7 order was passed by the RTA without notice to the Panchayat and hence Ext.P7 is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Sri.Bechu Kurian relied on the judgment of this court in V.R.Sukumaran Nair & Ors. v. The Secretary, Vazhoor Grama Panchayat & Another ( 2003(2) KLT 212) to argue that the Panchayat has a say in the matter of locating the bus stop within its local limit since the Panchayat being local authority will be more conscious about the requirements and needs of the citizens.
6. In view of the contest as to whether Ext.P7 decision of the RTA was taken with notice to the Panchayat, I directed the Government Pleader to seek instructions from the Secretary of the RTA and file a statement. Accordingly, statement dated 23/06/2008 has R.P.No.937/2007 5 been filed on behalf of the Secretary of the RTA by the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector. It is stated at paragraph 3 of the statement that no notice was issued to the Vorkady Grama Panchayat authorities regarding Ext.P7 decision since they are not involved in the application. After giving notice to the applicant Sri.C.Keshava Bhat, the Regional Transport Authority, Kasargod at its meeting held on 07-04-2004 vide item No. 16, adjourned the matter. Again, the RTA, Kasargod in its meeting held on 25-05-2004 vide item No. 22 allowed the request regarding the shifting of bus stand situated at Majirapallakatta/Vorkady in R.S.No. 499 of Vorkady village. The decision of the RTA was communicated to the Secretary of the Panchayat.
7. Even though it cannot be stated that the submissions of Smt.Sumathy Dandapani, learned senior counsel, regarding the maintainability of I.A.No. 707/2006 are totally without force, I feel that if the pendency of Annexures 2 and 4 applications submitted by the Panchayat before the Regional Transport Authority was brought to the notice of this court, this court would not have been inclined to direct R.P.No.937/2007 6 immediate implementation of Ext.P7. At the same time, I notice that there has been gross negligence on the part of the Panchayat in defending this writ petition effectively. Nevertheless, on considerations of justice, I am inclined to allow the Review Petition as well as I.A.No. 707/2007, but only on strict conditions.
The result is that the Review Petition and I.A.No. 707/2007 will stand allowed. The judgment of this court dated 06/12/2007 is recalled on condition that the review petitioner Panchayat pays a sum of Rs. 3,500/- ( Rupees three thousand five hundred only) by way of cost to the first respondent/writ petitioner within one month from today. If the Registry notices a memo against payment of cost within the the stipulated time, the Registry will post the writ petition for hearing before the appropriate court. If cost is not paid, the Review Petition and I.A.No. 707/2007 will stand dismissed.
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv.
R.P.No.937/2007 7