Kerala High Court
Muralidharan K vs The Secretary
Author: K. Vinod Chandran
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
MONDAY,THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2014/10TH CHAITHRA, 1936
WP(C).No. 4158 of 2014 (T)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
--------------------------
MURALIDHARAN K.
S/O.KRISHNAN, MALMADAM HOUSE, AKATHETHARA PO PALAKKAD.
BY ADVS.SRI.G.HARIHARAN
SRI.PRAVEEN.H.
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. THE SECRETARY
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD, PIN.678 001
2. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
PALAKKAD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN.678 001
ADDL.3. SURESH
S/O.T.BALARAMACHANDRAN, VIGNESH ILLAM, 100 FEET ROAD
SEKHARIPURAM POST, PALAKKAD.
( ADDL. R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 25/03/2014 IN IA 4462/2014.)
ADDL.4. P.RADHAKRISHNAN
S/O.PONNUMANI, RESIDING AT 1/461 ANURAG HOUSE
AKATHETHARA, DHONI.P.O., PALAKKAD - 678 009.
ADDL. R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 31/03/2014 IN IA 4946/2014.
R1,R 2 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI JOSEPH GEORGE
R3 BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN
R BY ADV. SMT.ASHA K.SHENOY (ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER)
R. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-03-2014,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 4158 of 2014 (T)
---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------
EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REGULAR PERMIT TO OPERATE ON
THE ROUTE MARUTHAKODE - PALAKKAD STADIUM BUS STAND FILED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE AGENDA OF ITEM NO.9 OF THE MEETING HELD ON 10-
12-2013 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TAKEN RELATING
TO ITEM NO.9 OF THE MEETING HELD ON 10-12-2013
EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH SHOWING THE DETAILS OF VIRGIN PORTION
AND THE "U-TURN" MENTIONED IN EXHIBIT P3.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
---------------------------------------
EXT.R3(a)- TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH
ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER'S EXHIBIT
--------------------------------------------------------
ANNEXURE A ATTENDANCE OF THE PARTIES CONCERNED
TRUE COPY
P.A TO JUDGE
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J
- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P(C) No. 4158 of 2014
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 31st day of March, 2014
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of his application for regular permit in the route Maruthakkode-Palakkad Stadium Bus stand via Railway Colony, Olavakode, Manthakkad, Kadukkamkunnam, Kanjirakkadavu, Kalippara, Kalleppally and Manali Road with trips between Dhoni, Stadium Bus stand and Muttikulangara Camp to Stadium Bus stand with halt at Marutha Road. The rejection has been made by Ext.P3. The only ground for rejection was that there is a "U-turn" after the Manthakkad over bridge, on proceeding towards Kanjirakkadavu which cannot be negotiated by a Stage carriage.
2. The petitioner challenged the said order WPC.4158/2014 : 2 : on the ground that the "U turn" could be negotiated by the vehicle which the petitioner is intending to operate in the said route; being a Mini Bus. On the alternative, it is also contended that if the petitioner is permitted to proceed further, after the Manthakkode overbridge, to Kanjirakkadavu, without negotiating the "U turn"; 50 mtrs ahead he would be able to reverse the bus and then safely proceed to Maruthakkode on the very same route, in which event, the vehicle need not negotiate the "U turn" at all.
3. This Court had appointed a Commissioner, an Advocate of this Court, to verify as to whether the negotiation of "U turn" is possible with the petitioner's vehicle. The Commissioner has filed a report dated 19.03.2014 agreeing with the conclusion reached by the Regional Transport Authority that even the petitioner's vehicle, a Mini WPC.4158/2014 : 3 : bus, could not negotiate the "U turn" at one go. In the Commissioner's presence; when that was attempted, the vehicle had to be reversed two or three times to successfully take the "U turn", is the report. However, the Commissioner also points out that the petitioners alternative prayer could be considered provided the same is permissible.
4. When the matter came for hearing, two stage carriage operators had sought for impleading, in the above writ petition which was allowed by orders in I.A Nos.4462/2014 &4946/2014. Evidently, both the said additional respondents are not operating on the same route and their operation overlaps the petitioners route at certain segments. The petitioner in I.A No.4946/2014 has also a contention that the present route sought for objectionably overlaps a notified route. It is trite that after the liberalised scheme brought in by the Motor WPC.4158/2014 : 4 : Vehicles Act, 1988, no permit holder could object to the grant of another permit. It is also trite that it does not lie in the mouth of a priovate stage carriage operator to point out objectionable overlap of notified routes. In such circumstance, though the additional respondents were heard, their objections are of no consequence. The petitioner in I.A 4462/2014 also has a contention that the petitioner in the writ petition has not sought for the alternative remedy available by way of appeal. That contention is also rejected, since the matter has been admitted and a Commissioner deputed to verify the sustainability of the reasoning in Ext.P3 order. The matter has also been elaborately heard before this Court.
5. As noticed earlier, the Commissioner has reported that the negotiation of the "U turn" could be avoided, if the petitioner proceeds straight for about 50 meters and then reverse the stage carriage WPC.4158/2014 : 5 : so as to avoid negotiating the "U turn" as such. This does not at all cause any difficulty to the public; and if at all the petitioner would have to take the vehicle further on a deviation. Hence, Ext.P3 is set aside only to facilitate reconsideration of the same. The petitioner is directed to file a modified proposal so as to avoid the direct negotiation of the "U turn". It is also to be noticed that there is no other stage carriage in the route which passes through the rural areas of the district. In such circumstance, the matter is remanded back to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration after obtaining report from Field Officer with respect to the modified route proposed .
Writ petition allowed. No costs.
Sd/-
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE)
jma //true copy//
P.A to Judge