This writ petition challenged a non-speaking order granting a variation to a bus contractor. Citing Prasad V. RTA, the court set aside the order and remanded the matter to the RTA to pass a reasoned order within one month.
Ext.P3 set aside; matter remanded to RTA to consider objections and pass reasoned order within one month.
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.SURENDRA MOHAN
TUESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2010 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1931
WP(C).No. 1607 of 2010(A)
PETITIONER(S):
BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK
RESPONDENT(S):
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE.
BY GP K S MUHAMED HASHIM
ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ FOR R3
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
APPENDIX(WP(C)1607/2010)
PETITIONER'S EXTS.
LGK
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J
WP(C).NO.1607 OF 2010
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P3 proceedings of the first respondent on the ground that the same is a non-speaking order. As per Ext.P3, a variation has been granted to the third respondent, which involves curtailment of the existing trips. According to the petitioners, the variation would adversely affect the travelling public. The petitioners rely on the decision reported in Prasad V. RTA, Ernakulam (2005(2) KLT 227). As per the above decision, it has been held that the RTA has to give reasons even while sanctioning an application for variation.
Wpc 1607/2010
2
contentions of the parties.
Ext.P3 is set aside and the entire matter is remanded to the first respondent. The first respondent shall consider the matter afresh and pass orders on the request for variation submitted by the third respondent after considering the objections raised against such variation including the objections of other passengers also. The orders in the matter shall be passed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE
lgk
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a non-speaking order sanctioning a variation of bus service trips is liable to be set aside under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Prasad V. RTA, ErnakulamExplained¶34
Prasad V. RTA, Ernakulam (2005(2) KLT 227)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
N.Santhosh and others
Regional Transport Authority, Kozhikode
Beerankutty
K.Surendra Mohan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
K.Surendra Mohan
Parties & counsel
