A writ appeal against a Single Judge's order dismissing a challenge to a permit holder's route extension and curtailment. The bench held that the Tribunal did not commit any error in appreciation of facts regarding bus services and dismissed the appeal.
The writ appeal was dismissed with no specific relief granted.
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 THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/21ST JYAISHTA, 1937
WA.No. 566 of 2015 () IN WP(C).23930/2014
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 23930/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 26/2/15
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER IN THE WPC:
--------------------------------------------------------------
K.ANITHA KUMARI
VICE PRESIDENT, KALLUVATHUKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH KOLLAM.
BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS IN THE WPC:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY KOLLAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 691 001.
2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 001.
3. NAVAS
R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.JITHESH MENON R1,R 2 BY ADV. SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.R.SYAMKUMAR
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ASHOK BHUSHAN, CJ &
A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.
================ W.A. No. 566 of 2015
===============
Dated this, the 11th day of June, 2015
J U D G M E N T
Ashok Bhushan, CJ
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
WA No.566/2015
-:2:-
before the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge heard both the writ petitions and after considering the submissions made by the petitioners has dismissed the writ petition. Petitioner still feeling aggrieved against the judgment of the learned Single Judge has come up in the appeal.
WA No.566/2015
-:3:-
aspects of the matter where Tribunal’s findings were alleged to be recorded incorrectly were considered by the learned Single Judge in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10, which are useful to be extracted here, are as follows:
“8. To consider the sustainability of Ext.P15 order on e has to first look at the observations made by this Court in Ext.P13. This Court found that the Tribunal did not evaluate the resolution passed by the Panchayath, in the proper perspective and the contention that the 3rd respondent’s service was the only service in the sector Meenambalam-Kalluvathukkal is not seen discussed or appreciated. The over emphasis given to the report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector and the lack of consideration of the grievance of the public was highlighted.
9. The impugned order of the Tribunal, Ext.P15 has to be analysed in that perspective. The Field Officer’s report was specifically noticed to find that between Nellettilkadavu to Mavinmoodu; the extended route, there were no stage carriage services. There was only one K.S.R.T.C. Bus and one private stage carriage in between the said places. The Field Officer’s report having stated the extension to be a valid one, conducive to the needs of the public, also
WA No.566/2015
-:4:-
found that the curtailment could not prejudice the public, since, there were altogether 22 stage carriages conducting several trips through Meenambalam. Kalluvathukkal was noticed as a town situated in the National Highway. Several K.S.R.T.C and private stage carriages were stated to be operating between Meenambalam and Kalluvathukkal.
10. The specific claim of the various public spirited Organisations including the Panchayath was that the 3rd respondent’s service is the only service operating between Meenambalam and Kalluvathukkal. However, the Field Officer’s report specifically indicated that, there are too K.S.R.T.C buses operating in that sector and that two private stage carriages are also being operated between Kalluvathukkal and Chirakkara temple passing through Sasthrimukku, a junction at Meenambalam.”
WA No.566/2015
-:5:-
issue. The resolution of the Panchayat has been adverted to this Court which in exercise of writ jurisdiction shall not substitute its findings on re-appreciation of evidence. No error was committed by the Tribunal which warranted any interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the appeal also, the same submissions attacking the record on fact are sought to be made. We are of the view that no error was committed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition.
Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
Sd/- ASHOK BHUSHAN, CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/- A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE
Rp
//True Copy//
PS to Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal committed any error in appreciation of facts regarding stage carriage services in the curtailed route.
Whether the learned Single Judge could substitute findings on re-appreciation of evidence regarding the Panchayat resolution.
Whether the writ petition challenging the Tribunal's order regarding permit extension and curtailment should be allowed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K.Anitha Kumari
Regional Transport Authority Kollam
Navas Dhharusalam
Ashok Bhushan
A.M. Shaffique
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
