Disposed

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. the Regional Transport Authority

Kerala HC18 Nov 2014WP(C)/3043/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition concerning a rejected application to vary a bus route by the Regional Transport Authority. It remitted the matter to the R.T.A. for fresh consideration, ensuring the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation was heard, as routes overlap.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of, leaving contentions open for the authority to consider afresh with KSRTC.

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs the… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/27TH KARTHIKA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 3043 of 2012 (E)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

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

¶8

KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-23, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, P. SURESH KUMAR.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC,KSRTC SRI.P.C.CHACKO, SC, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

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

¶12

1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, OFFICE OF THE RTA, THIRVANATHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶13

2. AJAYAKUMAR K.,

¶14

'KARTHIKA', KARAKULAM P.O., NEDUMANGAD VIA., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695 001.

¶15

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJU MEENATTOOR R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-11-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

msv/

¶18

WP(C).No. 3043 of 2012 (E)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶21

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

¶22

EXHIBIT P1:	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. 41240/TB3/71/PW DATED 11-12-1975 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P2:	TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P)NO. 107/94/PW&T DATED 24-11-1994 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P3:	TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P)NO. 108/94/PW&T DATED 24-11-1994 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P4:	TRUE COPY OF THE AGENDA ITEM NO. 72 OF THE MEETING OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT HELD ON 23-06-2010.
EXHIBIT P4(a):	TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 23-06-2010 FILED BY THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY.
EXHIBIT P5:	TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PORTION OF THE DECISION OF THE RESPONDENT DATED 23-06-2010 PERTAINING TO EXT. P4 AGENDA.
EXHIBIT P6:	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12-09-2011 IN M.V.A.A. 323/2010 OF THE LEARNED STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P7:	TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 8.11.2012.
EXHIBIT P8:	TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 8.11.2012.
EXHIBIT P9:	TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH SHOWING THE LIE OF THE EXISTING ROUTE AS WELL AS THE VARIED ROUTE.
EXHIBIT P10:	TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED 24.11.1994 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT VIDE NO.SRO.NO.1621.94.
EXHIBIT P11:	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.3.2013 IN WP(C) NO.6768/2013 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P12:	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.3.2013 IN WP(C) NO.28122/2012 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶24

ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF THE PREAMBLE ADOPTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN

¶25

PURSUANCE TO EXT.P3 NOTIFICATION.

Msv/

-2-

-2-

WP(C).No. 3043 of 2012 (E)

¶30

ANNEXURE B: TRUE COPIES OF THE SET OF TIMINGS FIXED FOR 111 PRIVATE STAGE CARRIAGE BUSES IN THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY.

¶31

ANNEXURE C: TRUE COPY OF THE ROUTE MAP OF POONTHURA A.K.G. NAGAR.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE.

Ms v/

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J

¶36

- - - - W.P.(C).No. 3043 of 2012

¶37

- - - - Dated 18^th November, 2014

¶38

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

The petitioner is aggrieved with Ext.P6

¶41

order passed in an appeal filed by the 2^nd respondent herein. The 2^nd respondent had sought for variation of extension of 5.1 Kms from AKG Nagar to Karakulam Junction and the same was rejected by Ext.P5, since variation, according to the RTA, would adversely affect the travelling public. Ext.P6 remanded the matter. The petitioner KSRTC submits that the KSRTC was not made a party. KSRTC is interested in the matter since there is overlapping of the route. There is a controversy as to what is the overlapping permitted as per the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and as per the Scheme. This definitely, has to be looked into by the 1^st respondent. Hence, on the 1^st respondent being approached by the 2^nd respondent after issuing

¶42

WP(C).3043/12

¶43

¶44

notice to the KSRTC and affording them an opportunity for hearing, the matter shall be considered afresh de hors Exts.P5 and P6.

¶45

The writ petition is disposed of, leaving open the contentions of both parties to be urged before the authority. Since the operations are continued by the 2^nd respondent despite the pendency of the writ petition, the same shall be continued till orders are passed by the 1^st respondent.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

K.VINOD CHANDRAN Judge

¶48

Mrcs

¶49

//True Copy//

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. the Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. the Regional Transport Authority

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

Sini Acquinose Vs Renjith Kumar

Dileep Kumar S.U Vs State of Kerala

The Vice Chancellor, Kannur University Vs Shaila R

Joseph Jacob Vs State of Kerala

Jose Antony Vs Assistant Registrar Co.Op.Societies & an

Ramanattukara Educational Co-Operative Society of Science and Technology LTD.NO.D.2794. Vs District Co-Op.Bank Kozhikode