Kerala High Court
Santhamma vs The Regional Transport Authority on 16 January, 2016
Author: Shaji P.Chaly
Bench: Shaji P.Chaly
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MAY 2016/4TH JYAISHTA, 1938
WP(C).No. 16654 of 2016 (F)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
SANTHAMMA
W/O BABURAJAN, SOUPARNIKA,
KOZHIMUKKU, THOTTAVARA P.O., ATTINGAL.
BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM(RURAL),
ATTINGAL-695101.
2. THE SECRETARY
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (RURAL),ATTINGAL-695101.
R1 & R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SMT.K.A. SANJEETHA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 25-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
bp
WP(C).No. 16654 of 2016 (F)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE AGENDA
INCLUDING THE PROPOSED TIME SHEET OF THE
PETITIONERS SERVICE.
EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 16.1.2016.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
bp
SHAJI P. CHALY, J
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 16654 of 2016
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of May, 2016
JUDGMENT
Petitioner applied for a regular permit on the route Attingal-Chirayinkil-Panayilkadave-Cherunniyoor. The application was considered in the meeting of the first respondent on 16.1.2016 and issued Ext.P2 proceedings by which the petitioner was also directed to submit a fresh set of proposed timings for settlement with 60% of the total trips between Attingal-Cherunniyoor. It is aggrieved by the said stipulation, petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
3. Apart from reiterating the contentions raised in the writ petition it is predominantly contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the stipulation made by the first respondent directing the petitioner to submit fresh set of proposed timings with 60% of the total trips W.P.(C) No. 16654 of 2016 2 cannot be sustained, since under the Motor Vehicle Act or Rules such a modality is not stipulated.
4. Learned Government Pleader on instruction submits that, if the petitioner is providing a new proposal showing sufficient trips, in between Attingal-Cherunniyoor the same will be considered by the second respondent.
5. Taking note of the rival submission made across the bar I am of the considered opinion that a direction can be issued to the first respondent to reconsider the stipulation contained in Ext.P2 proceedings with respect to 60% of the total trips between Attingal-Cherunniyoor by receiving a fresh proposal of timings showing the number of trips that the petitioner can provide as stipulated by the first respondent between Attingal- Cherunniyoor. If such an application is filed by the petitioner within a period of two weeks the first respondent shall take a decision on the same within a further period of six weeks thereafter.
6. There will also be a direction to the second W.P.(C) No. 16654 of 2016 3 respondent to consider during the interregnum by providing a temporary permit to the petitioner to operate in the route proposed by the petitioner and also taking into account the proposed timings put forth by the petitioner Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.
dlk/25/5/