Kerala High Court
Mohammed Basha S vs The Regional Transport Authority
Author: P.B.Suresh Kumar
Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2017/30TH PHALGUNA, 1938
WP(C).No. 9678 of 2017 (H)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
1. MOHAMMED BASHA S.,
NEW MANZIL,
7/173 KARETTE, VAMANAPURAM, TRIVANDRUM
(PERMIT HOLDER ON THE ROUTE VARKALA-KARIMANKODE
WITH STAGE CARRIAGE KL-16/H 8343)
2. MEENAKUMARI S., BRIDGE LANE, HOUSE NO.11,
ULLOOR, TRIVANDRUM (PERMIT HOLDER ON THE ROUTE
CHIRAYINKEEZHU-KULATHUPUZHA WITH STATE CARRIAGE
KL-22/E 3515
3. MANAGING DIRETOR, RKV MOTORS AND TIMBERS PVT LTD.,
RKV BUILDING, THAKARAPARAMBU ROAD, TRIVANDRUM
(PERMIT HOLDER ON THE ROUTE CHIRAYINKEEZHU - MADATHARA
WITH STAGE CARRIAGES KL-01/BK 7779 AND KL-01/BA 2224
4. K.DHIRANLAL, MANIMANDIRAM, KMS, THMPANOOR LANE,
ATTINGAL (PERMIT HOLDER ON THE ROUTE CHIRAYINKEEZHU-
MADATHARA WITH STAGE CARRIAGE KL-16/E 3232
5. S.SASIKALA, ANS VIHAR, PALACE ROAD, ATTINGAL,
TRIVANDRUM (PERMIT HOLDER ON THE ROUTE CHIRAYINKEEZHU
- SASTHAMNADA WITH STAGE CARRIAGE KL-16/L 9637)
6. BIJU K., KEENATHU VEEDU, ALTHARAMODU P.O.,
NAGAROOR, TRIVANDRUM (PERMIT HOLDER ON THE ROUTE
KADAKKAL - ATTINGAL WITH STAGE CARRIAGE KL-116/J 8687)
7. SHANAVAS, JANATHA BUILDING, MANANKKU,
PERUMKULAM P.O., VAKKOM, ATTINGAL PERMIT HOLDER
ON THE ROUTE KADAKKAVOOR - MADATHARA WITH STAGE
CARRIAGE KL-03/P 7920)
SKG
WP(C).No. 9678 of 2017 (H)
---------------------------
8. A.NAZEEMA BEEVI, JANATHA BUILDING, MANANAKKU,
PERUMKULAM.P.O., ATTINGAL (PERMIT HOLDER ON THE ROUTE
VAKKOM -MADATHARA WITH STAGE CARRIAGE KL-24/H 531
9. P.ABI, S/O.LATE G.PUSHPARAJAN, PUTHENVILA VEEDU,
PANANTEMUKKU, PERUMKULAM P.O., ATTINGAL
(PERMIT HOLDER ON THE ROUTE VAKKOM - JAWAHAR COLONY
WITH STAGE CARRIAGE KL-01/X 8609
BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (RURAL), ATTINGAL,
REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. 695 532
2. THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
ATTINGAL 695 532
3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001
R1-R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER P.M.MANOJ
R3 BY SRI.JOHN MATHEW, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 21-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
SKG
WP(C).No. 9678 of 2017 (H)
---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
----------------------
P1(a) TRUE COPIES OF THE EXISTING PERMIT HOLDING BY THE 1ST
PETITIONER
P1(b) TRUE COPIES OF THE EXISTING PERMIT HOLDING BY THE 2ND
PETITIONER
P1(c) TRUE COPIES OF THE EXISTING PERMIT HOLDING BY THE 3RD
PETITIONER
P1(d) TRUE COPIES OF THE EXISTING PERMIT HOLDING BY THE 3RD
PETITIONER
P1(d) TRUE COPIES OF THE EXISTING PERMIT HOLDING BY THE 4TH
PETITIONER
P1(e) TRUE COPIES OF THE EXISTING PERMIT HOLDING BY THE 5TH
PETITIONER
P1(f) TRUE COPIES OF THE EXISTING PERMIT HOLDING BY THE 6TH
PETITIONER
P1(g) TRUE COPIES OF THE EXISTING PERMIT HOLDING BY THE 7TH
PETITIONER
P1(h) TRUE COPIES OF THE EXISTING PERMIT HOLDING BY THE 8TH
PETITIONER
P1(i) TRUE COPIES OF THE EXISTING PERMIT HOLDING BY THE 9TH
PETITIONER
P1(2) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE STATE TRANSPORT
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN M.V.A.A.NO.679/2001 DATED 2.5.202,
RELATING TO THE PETITIONER
SKG
WP(C).No. 9678 of 2017 (H)
---------------------------
P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
11.6.2009 IN RESPECT OF THE 1ST PETITIONER
P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SAID NOTIFICATION DATED 14.7.2009
P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT
DATED 2.5.2014
P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN
W.A.NO.62 OF 2012
P7 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF the 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
4.8.2016
P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF the 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
24.1.2017
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
----------------------- NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.S.TO JUDGE
SKG
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
WP.(C).No.9678 of 2017-H.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 21st day of March, 2017.
J U D G M E N T
Ext.P8 order, which is impugned in this writ petition, is revisable by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. It is pointed out that though Ext.P8 order is dated 24.01.2017, the same was published in the notice board of the Regional Transport Authority only on 18.03.2017. The grievance of the petitioners, however, is that steps are being taken by the first respondent to implement Ext.P8 order even before petitioners are issued copies of the said order. The petitioners, therefore, seek appropriate directions in this regard.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader as also the learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent.
3. It is seen that the petitioners are operating stage carriage services on the route referred to in Ext.P8 order for the last so many years. When the term of the regular permits issued WP.(C).No.9678/2017-H. 2 to the petitioners was expired, they have preferred applications for renewal of the permits and pending disposal of the applications for renewal, they have been given temporary permits. Ext.P1 series are the temporary permits issued to them. The petitioners are presently operating services based on the said temporary permits. The operative portion of Ext.P8 order reads thus:
" ... ... Under the circumstances this Authority considered these applications afresh. Hence regular permits in the above routes are granted to State Transport Undertaking with direction to produce the current records of the vehicles applied for permits and to conduct the service at the earliest. STU is also directed to remit the prescribed fees if it is not sufficient for fresh permits. The private stage carriage operators are also directed to withdraw their stage carriages from the routes which are conducting service on the strength of temporary permits as and when the STU operates services on the fresh regular permits and the Temporary Permits stands cancelled with effect from the date on which STU starts services."
From the operative portion of Ext.P8 order extracted above, it is clear that the petitioners are adversely affected by Ext.P8 order.
In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the second respondent to issue copies of Ext.P8 order to the petitioners individually, within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Ordered accordingly. It is also directed that further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P8 shall be deferred for a period of two weeks thereafter, WP.(C).No.9678/2017-H. 3 so as to enable the petitioners to challenge the impugned order in revision before the Tribunal.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
Kvs/-