Kerala High Court
Abdul Razak vs The Secretary
Author: P.N.Ravindran
Bench: P.N.Ravindran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2012/23RD CHAITHRA 1934
WP(C).No. 8163 of 2012 (U)
--------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------------------
ABDUL RAZAK,
S/O.KUTTIYALI, KATTILPEEDIKAKKAL, MELANGADI P.O.,
KONDOTTY.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR
SMT.G.CHITRA
RESPONDENT(S):
---------------------------
1. THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE,
PIN-673 020.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
(CITY TRAFFIC), KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 020.
3. SASIDHARAN,
SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (TRAFFIC),
KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 020.
*ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED
*R4: SAKEER,AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.KUNHAYI,
PALATHINGAL,EDAVANNA.P.O.
*ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 12/4/2012 IN IA NO.5696/2012
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.G.GOPAKUMAR
R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 12-04-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
sts
WP(C)NO.8163/2012
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
P1 COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT HOLDING BY THE PETITIONER ON THE ROUTE
KARAKODE-THOTTILPALAM VALID UP TO 4/9/2013.
P2 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 24/9/2009
ISSUING TIMINGS FOR THE PETITIONER'S SERVICE
P3 COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH OF THE ROUTE SUBMITTED ALONG WITH
EXHIBIT P2 DATED 12/3/2012.
P4 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
KOZHIKODE DATED 11/8/1994
P5 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
1ST RESPONDENT DATED 4/8/2007.
P6 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WP(C)
NO.25545/2007 DATED 20/6/2008.
P7 COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT NO.299/TS II DATED
14/3/2012.
P8 COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 16/3/2012.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
R4(A) COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE NILAMBUR TALUK PRIVATE BUS
OPERATORS ASSOCIATION DATED 30/8/2007.
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO.JUDGE
sts
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
--------------------------------------
WP(C)No. 8163 of 2012
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of April, 2012
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is a stage carriage operator operating a stage carriage service on the route Karakkode - Kozhikode - Thottilpalam (via) Vazhikadavu, Nilambur, Areekode, Edavannappara, Pavangad, Atholi and Perambra on the strength of Ext.P1 regular permit, valid till 4.9.2013. The petitioner is presently operating the service as per the time schedule settled by Ext.P2 proceedings dated 24.9.2009, through the Moffussal Bus Stand in Kozhikode town which is otherwise known as the New Bus Stand. Sometime in the year 2004, the Assistant Commissioner of Police (City Traffic), Kozhikode directed the petitioner to operate the service through the Palayam Bus Stand. The petitioner thereupon submitted Ext.P5 representation before the first respondent. He thereafter filed WP(C)No.25545 of 2007 in this Court. By Ext.P6 judgment delivered on 20.6.2008, this Court directed the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kozhikode to consider Ext.P4 representation with notice to the petitioner and other parties and pass orders thereon, within three months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. It is stated that though pursuant thereto, there was no interference by the second respondent and the petitioner WP(C)No. 8163 of 2012 -2- continued to operate the service through the Moffussal Bus Stand at Kozhikode, the second respondent has issued Ext.P7 notice dated 14.3.2012 informing the petitioner that unless he operates the service thorough the Palayam Bus Stand, action will be taken against him. Hence this writ petition challenging Ext.P7 seeking the following reliefs:
i) to declare that the petitioner's stage carriage KL-08/AE 4707 operating on the route Karakkode - Thottilpalam have to start and halt the service at Kozhikode moffussal bus stand in consonance with Ext.P4 decision of the Regional Transport Authority, Kozhikode and respondents 2 and 3 have absolutely no right or authority to interfere in the said operation of the service;
ii) to call for the records leading to the case and quash Ext.P7 by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order;
iii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to operate his service with halt and start from Kozhikode moffussal bus stand;
iv) to stay the operation and all proceedings pursuant to Ext.P7 enabling the petitioner to continue his service on the route Karakkode - Thottilpalam in respect of stage carriage KL-
08/AE 4707 by halting and starting from Kozhikode moffussal bus stand, pending disposal of the Writ Petition (Civil)
2. The third respondent has on his own behalf and on behalf of the second respondent sworn to a counter affidavit dated 9.4.2012. In WP(C)No. 8163 of 2012 -3- paragraph 2 it is stated that all buses coming from Medical College side should reach Palayam Bus Stand and set down passengers in the said bus stand. It is also stated that buses proceeding to Ulliyeri and Thottipalam and buses going to the northern side should use the Moffussal Bus Stand, that all buses proceeding towards the southern side through Meenchanda Mini Bye - pass, the destination of which is more than 50 kilometres away can use the Moffussal-Bus Stand, but buses going to Nilambur and Vazhikadavu, via Medical College should use the Palayam Bus Stand. In paragraph 3 it is stated that stage carriage bearing registration No. KL-10-AD-6390 operating on the route Nilampur -Karulayi-via Medical College is reaching Palayam Bus Stand to take in and set down passengers and that buses proceeding to the south through the Mini Bye-pass, Meenchanda, Kondotty, Vazhikkadavu are permitted to start from Moffussal Bus Stand and that buses going via Medical college are not permitted to use the Moffussal Bus Stand. It is stated in paragraph 4 that in the year 2010 a new over bridge was built (Arayidathupalam) and all buses are using this over bridge for reaching the Palayam Bus Stand via Rajaji junction, Woodland junction, Muthalakkulam Maithanam and (GH Road) Palaym junction. The counter affidavit proceeds to state that Sri.Zakhir, who is the additional fourth respondent herein alleging herein had filed a WP(C)No. 8163 of 2012 -4- complaint on 10.12.2011 before the third respondent alleging that the petitioner is operating the service from the Moffussal Bus Stand instead of from the Palayam Bus Stand, that enquiries were thereupon conducted and intimation was also given to the Regional Transport Authority, Vatakara who informed the third respondent that fixing of parking places and halting stations of buses is within the purview of the traffic police, that notices were thereupon issued on 20.3.2012, 21.3.2012, 22.3.2012 to the petitioner for violation of the conditions of the permit, that on 24.3.2012 at 5.35 PM, the petitioner's bus was seized from the Moffussal Bus Stand for violation of conditions of the permit and produced before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, III in Petty Case No.101/2012 registered under section 66(1) read with 192(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The third respondent has also stated that the action of the petitioner has created a lot of problems to other stage carriage operators even leading to serious law and order problems. The additional fourth respondent has in the application filed by him seeking impleadment stated that except the petitioner's stage carriage, all other stage carriages operating through Medical College pass through Palayam Bus Stand and not through the Moffussal Bus Stand and that the petitioner alone is disobeying the directions issued by respondents 2 and 3.
WP(C)No. 8163 of 2012 -5-
3. I heard Sri.K.V.Gopinathan Nair, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.G.Gopakumar, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri.P.Deepak, learned counsel appearing for the additional fourth respondent. I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended relying on paragraph 6 of Ext.P4 proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority, Kozhikkode that only moffussal services coming to the city from Kunnamangalam and Mavoor via Medical College are bound to proceed to Palayam Bus Stand and that south bound buses having a destination point which is more than 50 kilometres away are permitted to conduct their up and down trips through Mavoor Road, Arayidathupalam, Kalluthan Kadavu, Mankavu, Meechanda Mini Bye-pass and then to national highway and back on the same route and therefore the petitioner is not bound to proceed to the Palayam Bus Stand, but can continue to use the Moffussal Bus Stand at Kozhikode. In short, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that buses which come from Vazhikkadavu and Nilambur are not bound to proceed to Palayam Bus Stand as stipulated in paragraph 6 of Ext.P4 and that such stage carriages can enter the Moffussal Bus Stand and thereafter proceed to their destinations. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader WP(C)No. 8163 of 2012 -6- appearing for the official respondents and the learned counsel appearing for the additional fourth respondent contended that all stage carriages entering Kozhikode town through Mavoor Road and Medical College have to proceed through Arayidathupalam and go to the Palayam Bus Stand and not to the Moffussal Bus Stand and that the petitioner is the only stage carriage operator operating from Vazhikkadavu and Nilambur who avoids the Palayam Bus Stand and continues to use the Moffussal Bus Stand. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents also contended that paragraph 5 of Ext.P4 relates only to stage carriage operators operating services via Ramanattukara to southern destinations and not to stage carriages which proceed to Vazhikkadavu and Nilambur through the Mavoor road.
4. Shorn of details, the contention of the petitioner is that paragraph 6 of Ext.P4 proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority is confined in its operation to stage carriages coming to the city from Kunnamangalam and Mavoor via Medical College and not to any other stage carriage. It is his further contention that as his stage carriage is coming from a place other than Kunnamanagalam and Mavoor, he is not bound by the stipulation in paragraph 6 of Ext.P1. On the other hand the stand taken by the respondents is that paragraph 6 is only WP(C)No. 8163 of 2012 -7- illustrative and not exhaustive and that all buses which enter the city via Medical College (Mavoor road) should proceed to the Palayam Bus Stand.
5. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel on either side. The short point that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether paragraph 6 of Ext.P4 is confined in its operation to stage carriages coming to Kozhikode from Kunnamangalam and Mavoor via Medical College or whether it governs all stage carriages which enter Kozhikode city via Medical College. Rule 206 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 stipulates that the State or Regional Transport Authority may, if no stopping place has been fixed for stage carriages in accordance with the provisions of any statute, fix such places for such carriages after consultation with such other authority as it may deem desirable, that such stopping places shall be indicated by means of notice boards, that the driver of a stage carriage shall stop it at such stopping places when so required by any person wishing to alight or to enter, but he need not stop the carriage for a person wishing to enter if the vehicle is already full, that halts for the purpose of setting down or taking up passengers shall be limited to the time reasonably necessary for such purpose, that on routes along which stopping places have been fixed, no driver of a WP(C)No. 8163 of 2012 -8- stage carriage shall stop the vehicle at any place other than such stopping places except- (a) when failure to stop the vehicle would constitute an offence punishable under the rules or under any law for the time being in force, or (b) in the case of mechanical breakdown. Rule 207 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 stipulates that in the case of public service vehicles (other than motor cabs) the State or Regional Transport Authority may, after consultation with such other authority as it may deem desirable, fix such places at the termini of the bus routes and in the course of the routes, as may be necessary, at which the vehicle may stop and wait for picking up or setting down passengers. It is also stipulated that where a local authority has provided and maintains public stand for motor vehicles with facilities for drinking water supply, lighting, latrine and waiting sheds for passengers and convenient parking places, the State or Regional Transport Authority may approve the use of that stand for the purpose of picking up or setting down passengers of public service vehicles (other than motor cabs) and thereafter, every vehicle shall make use of that stand, that the approval granted by a Transport Authority may be revoked by it, if the facilities provided at the stand cease to be to its satisfaction. The proviso to rule 207 stipulates that if bus stands or parking places or stopping places have been fixed either in accordance WP(C)No. 8163 of 2012 -9- with rule 207 or in accordance with any other rule, as the case may be, no public service vehicle other than a stage carriage shall be stopped in such places for the purpose of picking up any passenger waiting there and intending to travel by stage carriages.
6. Ext.P4 order is one evidently issued by the Regional Transport Authority in exercise of the power conferred on it under rules 206 and 207 referred above. The decision of the Regional Transport Authority which is reflected in Ext.P4 is however not clear as to the route through which buses entering the city from Vazhikkadavu should proceed. While the petitioner contends that paragraph 6 is confined its operation to stage carriages entering the city from Kunnamangalam and Mavoor via Medical College, the stand of the respondents is that all buses entering the city via Medical College, irrespective of the starting point, should proceed to the Palayam Bus Stand. In my opinion, such an interpretation cannot be placed on paragraph 6 of Ext.P4. It is also not clear from paragraphs 1 to 5 as to whether they govern stage carriages coming from Vazhikkadavu and entering Kozhikode city before continuing the journey. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Regional Transport Authority should examine the matter and take an appropriate decision in the matter.
I accordingly dispose of the writ petition with a direction that in WP(C)No. 8163 of 2012 -10- the event of the petitioner filing an appropriate representation within one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, the Regional Transport Authority, Kozhikkode shall consider the same, with notice to respondents 2 and 3 and other stage carriage operators operating through Kozhikode city and take an appropriate decision in the matter expeditiously and in any event within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of the representation. Until such time, the operation of Ext.P7 shall be kept in abeyance.
Sd/-
P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE.
Rkc // true copy// PA to Judge