Petitioner challenged a communication directing him to operate an old route schedule. The bench dismissed the petition noting the superior Tribunal had set aside the underlying permit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
FRIDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2007 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1928
WP(C).No. 613 of 2007(W)
---------------------------------
PETITIONER:
------------------
T.L.LONA, S/O.LAZAR, THEKKEKKARA HOUSE, CHITTILAPILLY, THRISSUR.
BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN
RESPONDENTS:
-----------------------
1. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM.
2. VENKATACHALAM SREE RAM HOUSE, JAYA PRAKASH LINE, POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR.
BY ADV. SRI.SAJU J.VALLYARA --R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.K.PUSHPALATHA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/03/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO: 613/2007 W
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXT.P1. COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS CERTIFIED COPY DT. 12/1/2006. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS CERTIFIED COPY DT. 12/1/2006.
EXT.P3. COPY OF THE INTIMATION RECEIVED FROM SECRETARY, RTA DT. 7/10/06.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS
EXT.R2A. COPY OF THE ORDER IN MVARP NO. 53/2006 DT. 26/4/2006 OF THE STAT. EXT.R2B. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 30754/2006 DT. 24/11/2006.
True copy
tga
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J.
W.P.(C).No.613 OF 2007-W
Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2007
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is operating his Stage Carriage on the route Kodungallur-Kozhikode. The second respondent is having a permit on the route Thrissur-Kozhikode. The said respondent sought for variation of that permit and variation was granted and the varied permit was issued as per Ext.P1 proceedings. While so, the Secretary, R.T.A. has issued Ext.P3 communication to the second respondent, directing him to operate as per the original permit and time schedule as he has not so far availed the varied permit. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P3 and also seeking a direction to compel the second respondent to operate in accordance with the time schedule contained in Ext.P1.
WPC 613/2007
2
above position, the second respondent submits there is nothing wrong in operating his service as directed in Ext.P3. It is also submitted that Ext.P1 is no longer in force in view of Ext.R2(a). In view of Ext.R2(a), the prayer of the petitioner for a direction to operate in accordance with Ext.P1 no longer subsists. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE.
MS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether High Court was justified in directing RTC to operate under a permit that was set aside by the Appellate Tribunal.
T.L.Lona
The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram
Venkatachalam
K.Balakrishnan Nair
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
