Dismissed

K.Rasheed v. the Secretary, Kaladi Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC3 Nov 2011WP(C)/909/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Regional Transport Authority's decision to shift a bus stop in Kandanagam, holding that the statutory authority's decision based on an Inspector's report should not be upset on grounds of inadequate reasons or lack of expertise.

What did the court decide?

Petition fails and is dismissed setling the writ petition filed by residents of Kandanagam.

K.Rasheed Vs the Secretary, Kaladi Grama Panchayath — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2011 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 909 of 2011(K) ------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

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

¶8

1. K.RASHEED, S/O.HASSAN, AGED 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT KANDANAKATH HOUSE, KALADI P.O., KANDANAGAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679582.

¶9

2. V.K.JYOTHI KUMAR, KONDODE HOUSE, KALADI P.O., KANDANAGAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT679582.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.V.JOHN MANI

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

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

¶13

1. THE SECRETARY, KALADI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶14

2. KALADI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶15

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM.

¶16

4. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶17

5. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, MALAPPURAM.

¶18

6. MUHAMMED C., CHANGAMPILLY POST, KALADY, 679582, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶19

7. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MALAPPURAM 676507.

¶20

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED SHAH

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

WPC NO.909/11

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

¶25

EXT.P1: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE RESIDENTS OF THE LOCALITY.

¶26

EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE WOMEN FOLK OF THE LOCALITY. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶27

EXT.P4: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF RTA, MALAPPURAM DATED 22/2/11.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 909 OF 2011

¶32

=====================

¶33

Dated this the 3^rd day of November, 2011

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

Petitioners are the residents of Kandanagam within the limits of Kalady Grama Panchayat in Malappuram District. They are aggrieved by Ext.P4, the proceedings of RTA, Malappuram allowing shifting of the bus stop at Kandanagam towards Kuttipuram and the new location is allowed 15 metres away from the present position. It is seen that when a proposal was mooted for the shifting of the bus stop, petitioners raised objections evidenced by Exts.P1 to P3 and it was accordingly that the matter was considered by the RTA, which resulted in Ext.P4 proceedings approving the proposal.

¶36

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that shifting of the bus stop has been approved by the RTA and that Ext.P4 does not contain reasons justifying the decision. Although it is true that the order does not contain the reasons as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the statement filed on behalf of the 5^th respondent discloses that, on enquiry by the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Ponnani, it was reported

¶37

WPC No. 909/11

¶38

:2 :

¶39

that the existing bus stop is situated near a steep curve and was causing inconvenience to the travelling public. It is stated that taking note of the said factual report, the RTA took the decision evidenced by Ext.P4. There is nothing on record to indicate that the said factual aspect reported by the Motor Vehicles Inspector is erroneous. If that be so, this Court sitting in writ jurisdiction should not upset the decision of the RTA. This is all the more so since in matters regarding location of a bus stop, it is not for this Court to substitute its views as against the views taken by the statutory authorities. This view I have taken is fully supported by the principles laid down by the Apex Court in J.R.Raghupathy v.

¶40

State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1988 SC 1681).

¶41

Writ petition fails and is dismissed.

¶42

Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶43

¶44

//True Copy//

¶45

PA to Judge

K.Rasheed v. the Secretary, Kaladi Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Rasheed v. the Secretary, Kaladi Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pullikkal Velayudhan (Died) His Legal He Vs P.Prabhakaran I.A.S. & Another

K.M.Balan (Died) His Legal Heir,Janaki Vs P.Prabhakaran I.A.S

A.L.George Vs Shaji Prabhu

Nafeesa Vs Anitha Rani

Shamsudeen Rawther Vs the District Collector,Kollam

Thiruthummal Muhammed @ Bava Vs the Kerala Wakf Board & Others