Disposed

Aruna Sridhar v. State Transport Authority

Kerala HC24 Mar 2010WP(C)/3771/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the respondents to implement the directions of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal by granting counter signature to the petitioner's permit for the Kasaragod-Puthur route within one month.

What did the court decide?

A direction to the respondents to implement the judgment of the Stat. Appellate Tribunal and grant counter signature to the petitioner's permit within one month.

Aruna Sridhar Vs State Transport Authority — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2010 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1932

¶4

WP(C).No. 3771 of 2010(V) -------------------------------------

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

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

¶7

ARUNA SRIDHAR, W/O.SRIDHAR, `SHARANYA', LEXMI NAGAR, BIJAI, MANGALORE, REP.BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER M.KRISHNA BHAT, S/O.LATE BHIMA BHAT, MACHIMALE HOUSE, ARYAPPU VILLAGE, PUTHUR TALUK, D.K.

¶8

BY ADV. MR.A.INEES.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

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

¶11

1. THE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KERALA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

2. THE SECRETARY, STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR. K.S. MUHAMMED HASHIM.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

W.P.(C). NO.3771/2010-V:

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶18

EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT OF THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN M.V.A.A. NOS. 577/2008 AND 842/2007 DTD. 27/05/2009.

¶19

EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P.1. DTD. 30/05/2009.

¶20

EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RESPONDENT DTD. 11/11/2009 IN ITEM NO. 10.

¶21

EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REQUEST FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECRETARY, S.T.A. KERALA DTD. 14/01/2010.

¶22

EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 21/01/2010.

¶23

EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE DECISION OF THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA REPORTED IN 2004(2) KLJ 451.

¶24

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J

WP(C).NO.3771 OF 2010

¶30

DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2010

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

This writ petition is filed complaining about non implementation

¶33

of the directions contained in Ext.P1 judgment of the STAT. As per Ext.P1, the first respondent has been directed to grant counter signature to the Inter-State permit of the petitioner, for the route Kasaragod - Puthur. Ext.P1 judgment is dated 27.5.2009 and it was produced before the second respondent on 30.5.2009. However, without implementing Ext.P1, a decision thereon is deferred to verify the length of the route and to settle the timings. According to the petitioner, the reasons for deferring the decision on the issue is absolutely frivolous and is intended only to delay matters without taking any decision. Therefore, the petitioner prays for the issue of appropriate directions for implementation of the directions in Ext.P1.

¶34

The learned Senior Government Pleader submits that the Government of Karnataka has moved the Supreme Court challenging the right of private parties to operate on the route in question.

¶35

Wpc 3771/2010 2

¶36

Therefore, it is submitted that the matter was deferred for the purpose of ascertaining the fate of the said challenge.

¶37

It cannot be disputed that by Ext.P1 judgment, the first respondent has been directed to grant counter signature to the petitioner. Unless such decision is varied or set aside by a competent authority, the first respondent cannot escape from the liability to comply with the same.

¶38

In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to implement the judgment of the STAT in MVAA Nos.577 of2008 and 842 of 2007 dated 27.5.2009 and to grant the counter signature to the permit of the petitioner, as directed. Necessary action in this regard shall be initiated 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.

¶39

K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE

¶40

lgk

Aruna Sridhar v. State Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aruna Sridhar v. State Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.Byju Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Op.Societies

Aipu Joseph Vs the District Executive Officer

P.Prasad Kumar Vs the Kannur District Co-Op. Bank Ltd.

T.S.Harikumar Vs Syama.G & Another

M.Ravindran Vs the Joint Registrar

Tukuna Behera Vs the Asst.Labour Officer