Disposed

Mohanan v. the Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram

Kerala HC27 Nov 2012WP(C)/21688/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by auto-taxi drivers challenging the R.T.A.'s decision to reorganize the parking stand. The Court directed the R.T.A. to reconsider the decision and pass fresh orders after hearing the petitioners and affected parties within one month.

What did the court decide?

Dated the decision dated 23.04.2012 to be reconsidered, directing the First Respondent to pass orders afresh after hearing the petitioners and other affected parties within one month.

Mohanan Vs the Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/6TH AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 21688 of 2012 (I)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1. MOHANAN,

¶8

S/O.VELAYUDHAN, CHEMBAKASSERY, MADATHINKULANGARA VEEDU, P.O.CHELEMBRA, KAKKANCHERRY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT (SECRETARY AUTO-TAXI DRIVERS CO-ORDINATION COMMITTEE).

¶9

2. SHANMUGHAN .P., S/O.CHANDRAN, PARAMBAT HOUSE, PALLICKAL P.O, VIA. CHELEMBRA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. (PRESIDENT, AUTO-TAXI DRIVERS CO-ORDINATION COMMITTEE).

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN.

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM - 676 505, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶13

2. THE SECRETARY, THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM - 676 505.

¶14

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM - 676 505.

¶15

4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 673 634.

¶16

5. SRI.KOYA, S/O.CHEKKU, VADAKKEKANDI HOUSE, KOLAKKATTUCHALIL, CHELEMBRA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 673 634.

¶17

R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. NOUSHAD THOTTATHIL, R5 BY ADVS. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN, SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH, SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR, SMT.VANDANA MENON.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Prv.

¶20

W.P.(C). NO.21688/2012-I:

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶23

EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) 22157/11 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶24

EXHIBIT P2. NOTICE ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 02.03.2012. EXHIBIT P3. PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 23.04.2012 (ORDER IMPUGNED).

¶25

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

Prv.

HARUN-UL-RASHID,J.

¶30

W.P.(C) No. 21688 of 2012

¶31

Dated this the 27^th day of November 2012

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

The writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P3 and for a declaration that decision Nos. 1 and 2 in Ext.P3 declaring the existing auto parking place as no parking area and bifurcating the autorickshaw stand at Kakkancherry, as illegal and liable to be struck down and for other incidental reliefs.

¶34

Petitioners are autorikshaw drivers plying their vehicles in and around Kakkancherry in Malappuram District. They are the Secretary and President of the Auto-Taxi Drivers Co-ordination Committee. Respondent No.5 and two others filed W.P.(c) No. 22157/2011 before this Court seeking a direction to respondents therein for shifting the existing Autorickshaw stand at Kakkencherry junction to another locality and for other incidental reliefs.

¶35

This Court by judgment dated 17.10.2011, disposed of the writ petition directing the Regional Transport Authority to pass appropriate orders on Ext.P5 with notice to the petitioners, respondents 5, 6 & 7 and after affording them a reasonable opportunity of being heard and a further direction was issued to take

¶36

w.p.(c) No.21688/2012

¶37

¶38

final decision within three months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment and also directed the Regional Transport Authority to communicate the order to all the parties concerned.

¶39

Petitioners submitted that as directed by this Court, the first respondent was bound to hear the petitioners also before taking any decision to shift the autorickshaw stand from the existing place. The first respondent issued communication dated 2.3.2012 calling upon the petitioners and others to be present at the Thenhipalam Police Station on 8.3.2012. Ext.P2 is the copy of the notice issued. It is submitted by the petitioners that pursuant to Ext.P2, petitioner appeared before the Thenjipalam Police Station. But no decision has been taken on that day and they were told that a detailed discussion will be held before the Secretary, RTA in which the petitioners will be asked to attend by a separate notice.

¶40

It is contended that without serving notice and without hearing petitioners, Ext.P3 proceedings was passed by the RTA Malappuram. A true copy of the proceedings dated 23.4.2012 is marked as Ext.P4.

¶41

It is submitted that the present arrangement is made in a most unscientific and unworkable manner. It is pointed out that the autorickshaw parking is arranged by Ext.P3 order has bifurcated the auto stand and placed one segment in front of KINFRA and the other

¶42

w.p.(c) No.21688/2012

¶43

¶44

one beyond the bus stop towards Kozhikode side. It is submitted that huge lorries and containers going to KINFRA, disable parking of any autorickshaw at the said point. It is also pointed out that women and children getting down at the bus stop have to cross the junction to board the autorickshaws. It is also pointed out that implementing the decisions in Ext.P3 will result in frequent accidents in the area.

¶45

Ext.P3 order was passed without affording an opportunity of being heard to the office bearers of the Auto-Taxi Drivers Coordination Committee.

¶46

In the said facts and circumstance, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the first respondent to reconsider Ext.P2 decision and pass orders afresh after hearing the petitioners and other affected parties as directed in Ext.P1 Judgment and communicate the order to all the concerned. The final decision in the matter shall be taken expeditiously, in any event within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶47

Sd/- HARUN-UL-RASHID JUDGE

¶48

al/-

Mohanan v. the Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohanan v. the Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram

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

Reneesa Vs the Managing Director, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Ramakrishnan M.S. Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Joby Tharian Vs the District Labour Officer

Tom Thomas Vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

S.K.Joseph Vs S.K.Ittoop and Others

Ramesh v. Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies