Kerala High Court
Ottapalam Taluk Private Sub Operators' ... vs The Regional Transport Authority on 2 March, 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
TUESDAY,THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2016/10TH JYAISHTA, 1938
WP(C).No. 39782 of 2015 (W)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-----------------------
1. OTTAPALAM TALUK PRIVATE SUB OPERATORS' ASSOCIATION
C.H.COMPLEX, NEAR TECHNICAL HIGH SCHOOL,
SHORNUR - 679 122, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
T.K.HAMEED, THONIKKADAVIL HOUSE, SHORNUR 02.
2. P. KRISHNAKUMAR
PULIKKATHODI HOUSE, S.R.K.NAGAR, OTTAPALAM - 03.
BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK
RESPONDENT(S) :
-----------------------------
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
PALAKKAD - 678001.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
PALAKKAD - 678 001.
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
PALAKKAD - 678 001.
4. THE DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER
CENTRAL ZONE-1, THRISSUR - 680 002.
5. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
PALAKKAD - 678 101.
6. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER
TRANS TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
7. K.MOHANAN
S/O.KUPPAN, OOTTARAKALAM, P.O.KOLLENGODE,
PALAKKAD - 678 114.
...2/-
WP(C).No. 39782 of 2015 (W) -2-
*ADDL. R8 TO R13 IMPLEADED
---------------------------------------------
ADDL. R8. JOJO
THENGUMTHOTTATHIL HOUSE,
PANNIYANKARA P.O., ALATHUR.
ADDL. R9. MANESH
6/360 (15/325), PANGIL, MALAKA,
THEKKUMKARA, THALAPPALLY,
WADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR.
ADDL. R10. P. KUNJUNNI
PUTHENVEETTIL HOUSE, PUNCHAPADAM P.O.,
SREEKRISHNAPURAM, OTTAPALAM.
ADDL. R11. SHAHUL HAMEED A.,
PILLAKODE, NENMANI P.O., KOLLENGODE,
PALAKKAD.
ADDL. R12. SURESH BABU
'KRISHNA', SARAYU NAGAR,
CHANDRA NAGAR P.O., PALAKKAD.
ADDL. R13. KURIAKOSE N.K.,
NADAKKAL HOUSE, THOTTUPALAM,
ERIMAYUR P.O., ALATHUR.
*ADDL. R8 TO R13 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN IA
NO. 2691/2016 DATED 02/03/2016.
R1 TO R6 BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.A. SANJEETHA
ADDL.R8 TO R13 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31-05-2016,
ALONG WITH WP(C) NO. 11811/2016 & WP(C) NO. 18127/2016, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mn
...3/-
WP(C).No. 39782 of 2015 (W)
-----------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :
------------------------------------------
EXT. P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED AS S.R.O
NO: 123 OF 1993.
EXT. P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE AGENDA (RELEVANT EXTRACT) OF THE
MEETING OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT SCHEDULED TO BE HELD ON
5/12/2015 AND LATER DEFERRED TO 14/12/2015.
EXT. P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 02/12/2015 FILED BEFORE
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT. P3(a): A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 02/12/2015 FILED BEFORE
THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL
-------------------------------------------------
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
Mn
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
-----------------------------------------------
W.P.(C). Nos.39782 of 2015, 11811 of 2016
and 18127 of 2016
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of May, 2016
JUDGMENT
The grievance voiced by the petitioner in these writ petitions is that the meeting of the 1st respondent held on 14.12.2015 with the 5th respondent in W.P.(C) No.39782/2015 namely the Additional District Magistrate, Palakkad (ADM) officiating as Chairman of the 1st respondent in place of the 2nd respondent District Collector was not a properly constituted meeting since the ADM did not have the power to chair such a meeting.
2. The apprehension expressed by the petitioners in these writ petitions is that if in the meeting constituted on 4.12.2015 decisions were taken, the same would be illegal for want of power for the Chairman of the said meeting viz; the ADM.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader.
4. Having heard the respective counsel and on perusal of W.P.(C). Nos.39782 of 2015, 11811 of 2016 & 18127 of 2016 2 the records, pleadings and evaluating the position of law on the issue, I am satisfied that the ADM has no power to chair the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority and in that view of the matter, the meeting chaired by the ADM on 14.12.2015 cannot be said to be a properly constituted one. In that view of the matter, it is only appropriate that the 1st respondent is directed to take a decision on the items placed before the meeting held on 14.12.2015 and in order to consider the same, a fresh meeting will have to be held by the 1st respondent and consider all the items which were placed on 14.12.2015.
5. Therefore, there will be a direction to the 1st respondent to consider all the items, placed in the order of preference in the meeting constituted on 14.12.2015 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY
//true copy// JUDGE
P.A. To Judge
smv
31.05.2016