Disposed

Babu Kurian v. the Regional Transport Authority

Kerala HC19 Feb 2016WP(C)/588/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court observed that while the existing saved permit covers Manarcadu Church to Kottayam, the specific sector to Pallikkathode lacks a scheme. The petitioners opposed a temporary permit for the elongated route, arguing it would constitute a new permit rather than an extension of a saved one.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd Respondent (RtA) to consider the grant of extension by temporary permit on the elongated route and pass final orders within three weeks.

Babu Kurian Vs the Regional Transport Authority — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/30TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 588 of 2015 (W)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

BABU KURIAN, MUPPARATHARA HOUSE, THIRUVARPPU, KOTTAYAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN-686 001.

¶11

2. THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM-686 001.

¶12

3. N.C.THOMAS

¶13

NARIMATTATHIL HOUSE, ARUVIKUZHY P.O. KOTTAYAM-686 503.

¶14

4. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023.

¶15

R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SANJEETHA K.A. R3 BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON

¶16

R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.CHACKO, SC, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-02-2016 ALONG WITH W.P.(C). NO. 4148/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No. 588 of 2015 (W)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

P1 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.8334/2014 DTD.24.3.2014.

¶22

P2 : COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT ISSUED IN RESPECT OF STAGE CARRIAGE KL-05/F 185 CLEARLY SHOWING THAT THE ROUTE IS ONLY MANARCAUD CHURCH TO KOTTAYAM AND THE PERMIT WAS ONLY VALID UP TO 29.1.2013.

¶23

P3 : COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD.6.5.2014.

¶24

P4 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN RP NO.352/2014 DTD.28.8.2014.

¶25

P5 : COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN ITEM NO.25 OF THE MEETING DTD.6.11.2014.

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:-

¶27

R3(a) : COPY OF THE PERMIT OF KL-5 F 185

¶28

R3(b) : COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATEDS 14.07.2009

¶29

R3(c) : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C). NO. 26650/2014 DATED 24.10.2014

¶30

R3(d) : COPY OF THE TEMPORARY PERMIT DATED 1.1.2015

¶31

R3(e) : COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 30.12.2014

¶32

R3(f) : COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 28.10.2014

¶33

R3(g) : COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE.

DCS

V. CHITAMBARESH, J

¶38

W.P.(C). Nos. 588 OF 2015 & 4148 OF 2016

¶39

Dated this the 19^th day of February, 2016

¶40

JUDGMENT

¶41

It is a conceded fact that the route Manarcadu Church to Kottayam is covered by the scheme. But then the petitioner in W.P.(C).No. 4148/2016 is a transferee of the saved permit on the route. There cannot therefore be any objection to the petitioner operating service from Manarcadu Church to Kottayam.

¶42

The dispute now boils down to the operation of service from Manarcadu Church to Pallikkathode. That sector is admittedly not covered by any scheme. The petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 4148/2016 contends that he is entitled to a temporary permit to operate service from Manarcadu Church to Pallikkathode. This according to him will be done without affecting the operation by the saved permit from Manarcadu Church to Kottayam.

¶43

W.P.(C). Nos. 588 OF 2015 & 4148 OF 2016

¶44

¶45

The petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 588/2015

¶46

vehemently opposes the grant of the temporary permit to the petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 4148/2016 to operate service from Manarcadu Church to Pallikkathode. No doubt there can be an extension of service from one terminus to another place. But the petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 588/2015 asserts that the extension (even by temporary permit) if granted would be entirely a new permit and not a saved permit. There cannot be an addition by temporary permit to a saved permit is the contention of the petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 588/2015.

¶47

I direct the second respondent to consider the

¶48

grant of extension by temporary permit on the route Manarcadu Church to Pallikkathode in addition to Manarcadu Church to Kottayam as per law. Whether the service in the elongated route (if permissible) can be operated on the basis of Ext. P2 time schedule in W.P.(C). No. 4148/2016 shall also be adverted to. Final orders shall be passed with notice to the petitioners in both the writ

¶49

W.P.(C). Nos. 588 OF 2015 & 4148 OF 2016

¶50

¶51

petitions as well as the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation within a period of three weeks.

¶52

The writ petitions are disposed of.

¶53

V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE

¶54

DCS

Babu Kurian v. the Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu Kurian 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

Appukuttan K Vs Marykutty IAS

Aswini.K.S Vs the Mahatma Gandhi Unniversity

Lijo Vs Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Krishnadasan Vs Ratheesh

Abdul Nazar P.K. Vs the Assistant Engineer

K.K.Hashik Vs the R.T.A Vadakara