Kerala High Court
M.P.Basheer vs The Regional Transport Authority on 27 November, 2018
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
TUESDAY,THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940
WP(C).No. 27356 of 2018
PETITIONER:
M.P.BASHEER,
AGED 59 YEARS,
MUNDAKKAL HOUSE,
THANGALAM P.O.,
KOTHAMANGALAM,
SECRETARY,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PRIVATE BUS OPERATORS ASSOCIATION,
KOTHAMANGALAM UNIT.
BY ADV. SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
MINI CIVIL STATION,
MUVATTUPUZHA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
PIN-686 661.
2 THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
MINI CIVIL STATION,
MUVATTUPUZHA-686 661.
BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER: BIMAL K.NATH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 27356 of 2018
-2-
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who is a stage carriage operator on the route Kothamangalam-Perumbavoor, who is the Secretary of Ernakulam District Private Bus Operators Association, Kothamangalam Unit, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider Ext.P1 request dated 05.03.2018, Ext.P2 request dated 05.03.2018, Ext.P3 request dated 09.03.2018, Ext.P4 request dated 26.02.2018, Ext.P5 dated 09.03.2018 and take a decision regarding the fixation of fare stages, in accordance with the actual route distance on the routes highlighted therein, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.
2. On 13.08.2018, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Senior Government Pleader sought time to get instructions.
3. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent. Paragraphs 2 to 4 of the said statement reads thus;
WP(C).No. 27356 of 2018-3-
"2. It is submitted that the writ petition is filed against the non consideration of the representation submitted by the petitioner to re-fix the fare stages due to the introduction of traffic deviation and construction and opening of new bus stands at Kothamangalam. The High range bus stand at Kothamangalam was sanctioned by RTA Muvattupuzha during the year 2004. Proper use of the new bus stands were not implemented even after a decade due to various reasons. On 09.09.2016, the Municipal authorities had forwarded a resolution regarding traffic modification proposed to be implemented at Kothamangalam town and RTA Muvattupuzha in its meeting dated 17.11.2016 considering the matter and adjourned the matter, by directing Secretary RTA to convene a traffic regulatory committee meeting with all concerned.
3. Accordingly a meeting was proposed to be convened on 22.03.2017 but could not be convened due to the interference of some peoples including bus crews and others. Again a meeting of traffic regulatory committee was conducted on 11.04.2017 but could not attained finality due to the different opinions of the representatives. In this circumstances the matter was brought to the notice of Deputy Transport Commissioner Ernakulam who is the member of RTA Muvattupuzha and also to the Hon'ble District Collector Ernakulam. Subsequently a meeting has WP(C).No. 27356 of 2018 -4- been conducted at Ernakulam Collectorate on 19.01.2018 in the presence of the Hon'ble MLA of Kothamangalam, District Collector, Kothamangalam Municipal Vice Chairman, Representatives of various Political Parties, Merchant Association Representatives, Bus Operators and Police Authorities and decided to implement the reforms as trial. Meanwhile the said representations were received from the petitioner to re-fix the fare stages due to the introduction of traffic modification. In this case the total distance between any of the two termini's was not seen changed (ie, between Kothamangalam and Perumbavoor or Kothamangalam to Muvattupuzha etc) and the additional distance claimed to be covered is due to the introduction of operating stands constructed by the local authority as per Rule 344 of Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules. It is submitted that the direction has given to Joint RTO Kothamangalam for a detailed route enquiry report in this matter, for the consideration of the Regional Transport Authority Muvattupuzha in the next meeting.
4. It is submitted that the total distance between any of the two termini's was not seen changed and the additional distance claimed to be covered is due to the introduction of operating stands constructed by the local authority as per Rule 344 of KMV Rules. New bus stands at Kothamangalam were sanctioned by RTA Muvattupuzha during the year 2004 and the petitioner WP(C).No. 27356 of 2018 -5- has not objected the sanction at that time. The petitioner has not pointed out the matter even in the meeting held on 19.01.2018 convened by the District Collector."
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 2nd respondent has to place Exts.P1 to P5 requests before the 1st respondent Regional Transport Authority for appropriate orders.
6. The learned Senior Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that the 2 nd respondent shall place Exts.P1 to P5 requests before the 1 st respondent for consideration and thereafter, the said Authority shall consider and pass appropriate orders, with notice to the petitioner, other affected operators, the representative of KSRTC and also the general public, after issuing a public notice.
7. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed WP(C).No. 27356 of 2018 -6- of by directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P1 to P5 requests made by the petitioner, with notice to the petitioner, other affected operators, the representative of KSRTC and also the general public, after issuing a public notice. Necessary orders in this regard shall be passed, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the claim in Exts.P1 to P5 and it is for the 1st respondent to take an appropriate decision, strictly in accordance with law.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE bpr WP(C).No. 27356 of 2018 -7- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 05.03.2018.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 05.03.2018.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 09.03.2018.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 26.02.2018.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 09.03.2018.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE