Dismissed

S.Santhakumar v. the State Transport Authority, Kerala

Kerala HC8 Aug 2016WP(C)/11967/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the revision of bus timings by the Transport Authority allegedly without hearing, the court held that the petitioner was not heard. It directed the Authority to reconsider the revision of timing within one month after issuing notice to all parties in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent to reconsider the revision of petitioner's timing within one month after issuing notice to the petitioner and other interested parties.

S.Santhakumar Vs the State Transport Authority, Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/17TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 11967 of 2014 (U)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

S.SANTHAKUMAR,

¶8

AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.KANTHA SWAMY, MOTHI HOUSE, NANDANKIZHIYA, ANAMARI P.O, MUTHALAMADA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL

¶10

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶11

THE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶12

THE SECRETARY, STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695 001.

¶13

THE SECRETARY, THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD 678 001.

¶14

K.K.SASIDHARAN, S/O.KUMARAN, KALAPURACKAL HOUSE, EDAPPALAM, PATTIKKAD P.O, THRISSUR 680 652.

¶15

R1 TO R3 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.PAUL VARGHESE R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-08-2016, ALONG WITH W.P(C).NO. 20984 OF 2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Msd.

¶18

WP(C).No. 11967 of 2014 (U)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶21

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE TIMINGS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 23.06.1992.

¶22

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER DATED 16.05.2013.

¶23

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER TO THE PETITIONER AS WELL AS THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 22.07.2013.

¶24

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C).NO. 22505 OF 2013 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 10.09.2013.

¶25

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C).NO. 23381 OF 2013 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 17.10.2013.

¶26

EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19.10.2013.

¶27

EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 06.11.2013.

¶28

EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D2/13673/STA/2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 03.04.2014.

¶29

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶30

EXHIBIT R2(A): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.10.2013. EXHIBIT R2(B): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 31.12.2013 OF KSRTC. EXHIBIT R4(A): A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 23.10.2008 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT R4(B): A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, THRISSUR DATED 13.06.2013 ADDRESSED TO THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

SHAJI P. CHALY, J

¶35

W.P.(C)NO.11967 OF 2014 &

¶36

W.P.(C)NO.20984 OF 2016

¶37

Dated this the 8^th day of August, 2016

¶38

J U D G M E N T

¶39

Petitioner in this writ petitions are one and the

¶40

same, and the subject matter for consideration are materially connected, therefore I propose to pass a common judgment. Petitioner is an interstate operator, operating on the route Thrissur - Pollachi in accordance with Ext.P1 timings issued by the 2^nd respondent as early as in 1992. The 4^th respondent who is a new entrant to the field filed objection on the ground that total running time allotted is not in accordance with the actual distance. The matter was finally adjudicated by the 3^rd respondent evident from

¶41

Ext.P6. In Ext.P6, 3^rd respondent found that, it is unable to know the exact rate of running time alloted in each State while issuing time schedule. Hence 3^rd respondent sought clarification from the 2^nd

¶42

W.P.(C)NO.11967 OF 2014 & W.P.(C)NO.20984 OF 2016 2

¶43

respondent with respect to the originally issued time schedule, with details of intermediate points, so as to convene timing conference again within 15 days. However, the 2^nd respondent failed to forward the above details. Instead he obtained a report from the 3^rd respondent containing a fresh time schedule in accordance with D3 circular and the said report was forwarded by the 3^rd respondent without hearing the petitioner. Thereupon, the time schedule forwarded by the 3^rd respondent was approved and issued by Ext.P8 by the 2^nd respondent. It is thus challenging Ext.P8, petitioner has approached this court.

¶44

So far as the other writ petition captioned above is concerned, petitioner is challenging Ext.P10 order by which timing was settled by incorporating the passing time at Wadakkancherry and Nenmara without altering any other already allotted timings.

¶45

Government has filed a counter affidavit in W.P.(C)No.11967/2014 and the 5^th respondent has

¶46

W.P.(C)NO.11967 OF 2014 & W.P.(C)NO.20984 OF 2016 3

¶47

filed counter affidavit in the other writ petition. The contention put forth by the Government as well as the party respondent is that, no manner of interference is required either in Ext.P8 or Ext.P10 orders, the same being passed in accordance with law after providing necessary opportunity to the petitioner. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, petitioner was not provided with hearing, before revision of his own timings and therefore the orders suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and illegality. It is clear from the order that the petitioner was not heard, even though it is stated that, petitioner was issued with a notice. Taking into account, the respective submissions and since the petitioner has raised a contention that petitioner was not heard before revision of his own timings, I think it is only appropriate that, petitioner is provided with a reasonable opportunity of hearing so far as the revision of timing sought for by him. Therefore, there

¶48

W.P.(C)NO.11967 OF 2014 & W.P.(C)NO.20984 OF 2016 4

¶49

will be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to re-consider

¶50

the revision of timing, put forth by the petitioner, in the next timing conference or at the earliest, and at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after issuing notice to the petitioner and party respondents or any other interested parties ion accordance with law.

¶51

Writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.

¶52

sd/-

¶53

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE

¶54

R.AV

S.Santhakumar v. the State Transport Authority, Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Santhakumar v. the State Transport Authority, Kerala

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

V.Biju and 111 Others Vs the State of Kerala and Others

Ramachandran.T.R Vs the Adat Farmer'S Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

The Thodupuzha Primary Co-Op.Agriculture Vs a.P.James

Geetha K. Vs Vizhavoor Vanitha Co-Op Society Ltd. NO.T-1028

Resmi V.R. Vs the Kerala Co-Operative Development and

G.Suganan Vs the Jt Registrar of Co-Operative