Allowed

M.S.Anandan v. the R.T.a.,Ernakulam

Kerala HC23 Mar 2010WP(C)/19201/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment quashes an order of the Regional Transport Authority that was issued in violation of a prior STAT appellate order. The court directed the RTA to reconsider the petitioner's application in accordance with the STAT's findings.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P5 order is quashed; the RTA is directed to reconsider the petitioner's application strictly in terms of the findings in Ext.P4.

M.S.Anandan Vs the R.T.a.,Ernakulam — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2010 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 19201 of 2007(J)

¶6

---------------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

-----------------------

¶9

M.S. ANANDAN, S/O.SUKUMARAN, AGED 58 YEARS, MADATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHIRAYAM, PANAIKULAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

-------------------------

¶13

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C) NO. 19201/2007-J

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶19

EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RTA, ERNAKULAM DATD 15/03/2007. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL IN MVAA NO.214/2007.

¶20

EXT.P3: COPY OF THE SRO NO.278/1993 DATED 15/02/1993.

¶21

EXT.P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30/04/2007 IN MVAA NO.214/2007.

¶22

EXT.P5: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RTA, ERNAKULAM DATED 17/05/2007.

¶23

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

rs.

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

¶28

W.P(C).No.19201 OF 2007

¶29

¶30

Dated this the 23^rd day of March, 2010

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

Contrasting Exts.P1 and P4, and P5, there is no doubt that Ext.P5 order has been issued by the Regional Transport Authority in violation of the directions and findings in Ext.P4 appellate order of the STAT. The STAT had specifically held in Ext.P4 that Kongorpilly-Tripunithura-North Parur-Kakkanadu is not a city route but moffussil route and the notification relied on by the RTA would apply only to city routes. It was accordingly that Ext.P1 rejection order was found to be unsustainable. Obviously therefore, it is inappropriate for the RTA to get over Ext.P4 appellate order of the STAT. Ext.P5, being an order passed in clear affront to the findings in Ext.P4, does not stand. Accordingly, Ext.P5 is quashed and the RTA is directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner strictly in terms of the findings in Ext.P4. The writ petition is allowed accordingly.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge.

¶35

kkb.24/03.

M.S.Anandan v. the R.T.a.,Ernakulam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.S.Anandan v. the R.T.a.,Ernakulam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Dakshayani Vs P.Kasthoori Thilakan

Kasthuri Rajan and Others Vs P.K.Santhoshakumar

Ummusalma Vs Ravi

A.Salim Vs the R.T.a.,Kollam & Anr.

K.M.Assnar Vs Vinod Kumar

Ravichandran Vs Dtc.Thrissur