Dismissed

Kerala State Private Bus Operators Co-Ordination Committee v. Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad

Kerala HC20 Jul 2012WP(C)/12193/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two writ petitions challenging modifications to traffic regulations in Palakkad town. One petition challenged new routes for bus operators, while the other challenged the impact on shop owners near the Municipal Bus Stand. The court held that the regulations were approved by the RTA and based on scientific study, prioritizing public interest to mitigate traffic congestion.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were dismissed in their entirety.

Kerala State Private Bus Operators… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JULY 2012/29TH ASHADHA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 12193 of 2012 (Y)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

KERALA STATE PRIVATE BUS OPERATORS CO-ORDINATION COMMITTEE, REG.NO.CA-113/08, 34/470, 1ST FLOOR TRAVELERS TOWER, SAKTHAN STAND, THRISSUR-21

¶8

REPRESENTED BY GENERAL SECRETARY, JOSE KUZHUPPIL.

¶9

C.O.JOHSNON, S/O.OUSEPH, CHEERAN HOUSE, NEDUPUZHA THRISSUR.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD PALAKKAD-678 001.

¶13

THE SECRETARY,

¶14

REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD-678 001.

¶15

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR-680 001.

¶16

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD-678 001.

¶17

Addl.5. THE PALAKKAD MUNCIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNCIPAL OFFICE PALAKKAD. ADDL. R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 01/06/2012 IN IA 7181/2012. Addl.6. THE CHAIRMAN PALAKKAD MUNCIPALITY, MUNCIPAL OFFICE, PALAKKAD.ADDL.R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 18/06/2012 IN IA 7587/2012. Addl.7. K.GANGADHARAN S/O.LATE KUNCHAYI, AGED 57 YEARS, A.K.G. NAGAR MURIKKAVU, WEST YAKKARA, PALAKKAD.ADDL. R7 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 27/06/2012 IN IA 8410/2012. ADDL.R5 & 6 BY ADV. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON BY ADV. SRI.P.S.APPU BY ADV. SRI.A.R.NIMOD BY ADV. SRI.K.A.ANAS ALL.R7 BY ADV. SRI.N.M.MADHU BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.G.GOPAKUMAR

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-07-2012, ALONG WITH WPC. 12690/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶21

EXT.P1 TRUE PETITIONER'S SER	COPY OF VICE DAT	THE PROCEEDINGS GRANTING TIMINGS TO THE FIRST ED 24.5.2000.
EXT.P2 TRUE PETITIONER'S SER	COPY OF VICE DAT	THE PROCEEDINGS GRANTING TIMINGS TO THE 2ND ED 23.3.2000.
EXT.P3 TRUE	COPY OF	THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 23.3.2000.
EXT.P4 TRUE	COPY OF	THE PAPER PUBLICATION DATED 19.5.2012.
EXT.P5 TRUE	COPY OF	THE PAPER PUBLICATION DATED 20.5.2012.
EXT.P6 TRUE DATED 22.5.2012.	COPY OF	THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
EXT.P7 TRUE	COPY OF	THE DECISION DATED 14.8.2009.
EXT.P8 TRUE DATED 14.8.2009.	COPY OF	THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
EXT.P9 TRUE	COPY OF	THE ROUGH SKETCH OF THE ROUTE.
EXT.P10 TRUE RESPONDENT.	COPY OF	THE NOTICE DATED 22.5.2012 ISSUED BY THE 4TH

¶22

EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER CUTTING OF MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DT.31.5.2012

¶23

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J.

¶28

W.P(C) NOS:12193 & 12690 OF 2012

¶29

Dated this the 20^th July, 2012.

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

These two writ petitions challenge the modifications made by the traffic advisory committee with respect to the movement of traffic in the Palakkad town. The modifications have been made with the object of easing the traffic congestion in the town. Since the issues that arise for determination are identical, both these writ petitions are considered and disposed of together.

¶32

WP(C)12193/2012 is filed by the Kerala State Private Bus Operators Co-ordination Committee. According to the petitioner, as per the new traffic regulations introduced in Palakkad town the buses commencing from Thrissur would have to proceed to the Stadium Bus Stand instead of the Municipal Town Bus Stand. According to the petitioner, the new traffic regulations would necessitate the traversing of an additional distance by each of the bus operators, affecting their time schedule and resulting in violation of their permit conditions. Therefore, it is contended that such regulations cannot be implemented without the permission of the Regional Transport Authority. It is contended that the

¶33

¶34

WPC 12193 & 12690/2012

¶35

additional distance that each bus would have to cover would be 1.5 kms.

¶36

WP(C) 12690/2012 is filed by two shop owners who own shops in the Municipal Bus Stand shopping complex. According to the petitioners, the new traffic regulations would result in loss of substantial business to the petitioners. It is alleged that the new traffic regulations have been introduced and implemented in haste, without being preceded by any proper study of the traffic conditions in Palakkad town or the reasons for the traffic congestion. For the above reasons, it is contended that the traffic regulations now introduced require reconsideration and suitable modification so as to ensure that it does not cause harm or financial loss to any section of the public. It is also contended that the new traffic regulations have been introduced without considering public interest which should in fact get the paramount consideration.

¶37

According to the counsel for the Municipality as well as the additional respondents who have got themselves impleaded, the new traffic regulations have reduced the traffic congestion which has been the bane of Palakkad town. They therefore support the new traffic regulations now introduced.

¶38

WPC 12193 & 12690/2012

¶39

¶40

A statement has been filed by the second respondent in the writ petition 12193/2012 justifying the newly introduced traffic reguations and denying the various allegations made by the petitioners.

¶41

I have heard the respective counsel for the petitioners and the learned Govt. Pleader as well as the counsel appearing for the Municipality and the additional respondents. I have also considered the rival contentions advanced before me, anxiously.

¶42

The decisions taken by the Traffic Regulatory Committee of Palakkad Municipality have been summarized in the statement of the second respondent. As per the new traffic regulations, stage carriages proceeding towards Alathur and Thrissur sides have to commence and terminate their services at the Palakkad Stadium Bus Stand. The stage carriages conducting services towards Railway Colony, Kottekkad and Malampuzha sides have to commence and terminate their services at the Municipal town bus stand. The stage carriages coming from Kottayi, Kuzhalmannam, Pudu have to reach the Municipal Bus Stand, Palakkad and return through Moyan's School, Tharekkad, Manali Bypass, Stadium Bus Stand. It is clear from the statement that the present traffic regulations do not seek to bypass the Municipal Town Bus Stand altogether. Only certain

¶43

WPC 12193 & 12690/2012 4

¶44

services are directed to commence and terminate their services at the Stadium Bus Stand, without going to the Municipal Town Bus Stand. Therefore, the shop owners who are conducting business in the Municipal Town Bus Stand shopping complex cannot be said to have been seriously affected. It is no doubt true that they may experience some short fall in their business by the diversion of some of the services to the Stadium Bus Stand. However, the same has to be put up with for the sake of the welfare of the general public which is to mitigate the traffic congestion in Palakkad town. Therefore, it cannot be said that the traffic regulations are introduced without taking into account the public interest involved. The commercial interest of the shop owners would have to give away the superior public interest to ensure smooth flow of traffic through the Palakkad town.

¶45

Regarding the grievance of the bus owners, the case of the second respondent is that the new traffic regulations have already been considered by the Regional Transport Authority ('RTA' for short), Palakkad and that approval has been granted for the same. The relevant portion of the statement containing the explanation of the second respondent is extracted hereunder for convenience of reference:-

¶46

¶47

WPC 12193 & 12690/2012

¶48

“On the basis of the complaint made by the petitioner the matter was enquired through competent officer of this department and ascertained that the additional distance to be traversed by the petitioners stage carriages is merely 300 meters on implementing the traffic regulation as against the alleged 1.5kms. To cover these 300 meters there is no need to vary the permit condition or to allow any additional time. The Traffic Regulation Authority, thereafter forwarded the decision to the Secretary, RTA for placing the matter before the RTA. Accordingly the matter was placed before the RTA, Palakkad on 19-6-2012 as supplementary item No:01 along with stay order of this Honourable Court. After considering the matter in detail and after hearing all concerned parties including the petitioner's association, the RTA, Palakkad approved the decision of Traffic Regulatory Committee, Palakkad for implementation subject to lifting the prohibitory order of this Honourable Court.”

¶49

In view of the above acceptance and approval granted by the RTA, the private bus operators cannot have any grievance whatsoever. The additional distance that the buses would have to traverse is only 300 mtrs. according to the second respondent and not 1.5 kms. as alleged. Therefore, it has to be held that the traffic regulations introduced do not suffer from any infirmity.

¶50

¶51

WPC 12193 & 12690/2012

¶52

Counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the newly introduced traffic regulations were not preceded by any scientific study. According to the second respondent the traffic regulations were introduced after a proper scientific study as evident from the following portion of the statement filed:-

¶53

“The decision of traffic advisory committee is based on scientific study and considering the traffic congestion at the Palakkad city and to ease the same and thus to the benefit of the public. This authority also conducted study on it and found the same to be suitable for the prevailing situation. This authority also heard all the parties concerned which include petitioner, before approving the same.”

¶54

No evidence or material has been placed before me to justify a conclusion that the above statements are not true. Therefore, I accept the statements made by the second respondent

¶55

I am not satisfied that the petitioners in these cases are entitled to any of the reliefs claimed. These writ petitions fail and they are accordingly dismissed.

¶56

Sd/K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge

¶57

jj /True copy/

¶58

P.S.to Judge

¶59

WPC 12193 & 12690/2012 7

Kerala State Private Bus Operators Co-Ordination Committee v. Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kerala State Private Bus Operators Co-Ordination Committee v. Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad

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

L.Yamuna Vs Smt.C.S.Anuja

Kannur Dist. Co-Op Bank Vs State Information Centre

Thalapalam Service Co-Op. Bank Limited Vs the State Information Commissioner, Unde

C.Babu Vs State of Kerala

V.U.Afsal Vs Sale Officer

Sudha Sreekumar Vs Regional Transport Authority