Disposed

V.Bhaskaran v. the Rta, Kasaragod

Kerala HC18 Aug 2015WP(C)/23446/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenges an order rejecting an application to vary bus permit conditions. Court directs respondents to reconsider the issue by obtaining an additional report from authorities and to pass appropriate orders within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to reconsider the issue after obtaining an additional report and pass appropriate orders within four weeks.

V.Bhaskaran Vs the Rta, Kasaragod — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015/27TH SRAVANA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 23446 of 2015 (E)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

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

¶8

V.BHASKARAN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.E. NARAYANAN NAIR, KOLLOT HOUSE, BANDADKA P.O., KASARAGOD.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.PRASAD CHANDRAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS :

¶11

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

¶12

1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KASARAGOD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. PIN - 671121.

¶13

2. THE SECRETARY

¶14

REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY KASARAGOD.PIN - 671121.

¶15

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.A.SANJEETHA

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-08-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

WP(C).No. 23446 of 2015 (E)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

EXT.P-1:	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF PERMIT DATED 13.5.2014
EXT.P-2:	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 27.5.2014
EXT.P-3:	TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR DATED 25.7.2014.
EXT.P-4:	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 25.9.2014.
EXT.P-5:	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC 5195/2015 DATED 23.2.2015.
EXT.P-6:	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 31.3.2015

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

¶28

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P(C) No.23446 of 2015

¶29

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

¶30

Dated this the 18^th day of August, 2015

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

The petitioner is challenging Ext.P6 order rejecting the application for variation of permit ignoring Ext.P3 report.

¶33

The petitioner is the holder of a regular permit on the route between Kannadithode and Kasaragod via Bandadka. He submitted an application for variation of permit conditions by extending one additional trip from Bandadka to Balanthode having a distance of 10 kilometres. The Regional Transport Authority considered the application in its meeting held on 27.5.2014 and adjourned the same for obtaining a scientific report from a team of officers of the department. The petitioner points out that in Ext.P3 scientific report of the field officer, it was stated that the same is beneficial to the traveling public.

¶34

Thereafter the first respondent considered the application in its meeting held on 25.09.2014 by Ext.P4 and directed the second respondent to enquire into the matter and to direct the applicant to furnish a modified application without curtailment of the trip at 5.15 P.M from Bandadka to Kasaragod. The petitioner approached this Court with W.P(C) No.5195 of 2015 wherein the first respondent was

¶35

WP(C)23446/15

¶36

-:2:-

¶37

directed to consider the application on the basis of the report. It was further added that if it is found that curtailment affects the traveling public, necessarily it has to be rejected. However, the first respondent has rejected the application by Ext.P6 order ignoring the report of the team of officers viz., the scientific report.

¶38

The petitioner further alleges that the first respondent has failed to consider Ext.P3 report without taking into consideration any of the valid contentions. The petitioner points out that the second respondent has conducted an enquiry. He also alleges that the report of the field officer reiterates that there are no sufficient number of services and the same is beneficial to the traveling public, especially the students of the proposed route. It is with this with this background, the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶39

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader in the matter.

¶40

The learned Senior Government Pleader inviting my attention to Ext.P6 order and Ext.P5 judgment submitted that Ext.P6 was issued in the light of the specific directions contained in Ext.P5 judgment. It is also submitted that Ext.P5 contains a clause that the petitioner's application could be rejected if it is against public interest.

¶41

WP(C)23446/15

¶42

-:3:-

¶43

In answer to the said submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that if a further report is called for, the same would prove that his request would not offend public interest.

¶44

In the light of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to reconsider the issue after obtaining an additional report from the authorities concerned and to pass appropriate orders on the same de hors Ext.P6 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶45

Sd/- A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE

¶46

krj

V.Bhaskaran v. the Rta, Kasaragod

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Bhaskaran v. the Rta, Kasaragod

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

Neetha Eapen Panicker Vs Prof. P.K.Radhakrishnan Ph.D

K.K.Sainudeen Vs K.K.Hashim

Febin Johns Vs the Regisrar of Birth and Deaths

Abdul Kareem C.A. Vs Registrar

Janeesh Vs the Chokkad Grama Panchayath

Illias K.P. Vs the Regional Transport Authority