This judgment considers a writ petition regarding a court order granting a vehicle route variation without recorded counsel consent. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondent to reconsider the application within a month.
Ext.P5 set aside; Respondent directed to consider Ext.P2 application afresh 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
FRIDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2010 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1931
WP(C).No. 6974 of 2010(V)
---------------------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------------------
THOMAS MANI, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. MANI, RESIDING AT MALLAKKATTU HOUSE, POTHENPURAM P.O., PAMPADY, KOTTAYAM.
BY ADV. MR.P.DEEPAK
RESPONDENT(S):
---------------------------
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM.
BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Kss
K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
W.P(C) NO: 6974 OF 2010
Dated this the 12th March, 2010.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a stage carriage operator conducting services with the vehicle bearing registration No: KL-05/Y 3609. His route is Pampady-Kottayam. He sought a variation of his route as Alampally-Kottayam via Pampady, Kalachantha, Pallikunnu, Chempankuzhy, Lakshamveedu colony, Manjady, Paruthalamattom, Mundiyakkal, Maliapady, Vettathukavala, Puthuppally, Manganam and Kanjikuzhy. According to the petitioner the existing services on the route are insufficient to service them effectively. There are educational institutions, banks and other public and private establishments on the route. Therefore, the variation according to the petitioner would be highly beneficial to the travelling public also. As per Ext.P5, the request of the petitioner has been granted without curtailment on the ground that counsel for the petitioner had consented to the said order. According to the counsel, he has not made any such concession. Therefore, he seeks invalidation of Ext.P5.
WPC 6974/2010 2
had consented. The previous proceedings initiated by the petitioner also do not probabilise the assertion that he had consented. Therefore, Ext.P5 is liable to be set aside. The learned Senior Government Pleader on instructions submits that the authority shall consider Ext.P2 application afresh.
K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge
jj
WPC 6974/2010 3
K.K.DENESAN & V. RAMKUMAR, JJ.
M.F.A.NO:
JUDGMENT
Dated:
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the order granting variation of route without consistent counsel consent can be set aside.
Whether the respondent authority must be directed to reconsider the variation application.
Whether Ext.P5 is liable for setting aside in the absence of evidence of counsel's consent.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
THOMAS MANI
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM
K SURENDRA MOHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
