Disposed

S.A Wahab v. State Transport Authority Kerala

Kerala HC5 Jan 2016WP(C)/8985/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition filed by a transport operator seeking directions to the State Transport Authority to consider his application for a regular permit on the Mangalore-Kasaragode route. The court directed the authority to convene a meeting to consider the application.

What did the court decide?

Directions to the first respondent to consider the petitioners application at the next meeting and pass orders after hearing all parties.

S.A Wahab Vs State Transport Authority Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/15TH POUSHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 8985 of 2014 (W)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

S.A WAHAB AGED 78 YEARS S/O SHEIK YOUSUF SAHEB, RESIDING AT MEHBOOB MANZIL ANANGOOR, PO VIDYANAGAR, KASARAGOD-671 123.

¶8

BY ADVS.SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI (SR.)

¶9

SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI

¶10

SMT.ANNA THOMAS

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.

¶13

2. THE SECRETARY, STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, TRANS TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.

¶14

ADDL. 3. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001, REPRESENTED B7Y ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶15

ADDITIONAL R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 5.1.16 IN IA.NO.9210 OF 2014.

¶16

RADDL R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.CHACKO, SC, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN.

¶17

R1 AND R2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LILLY LESSLIE

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C).No. 8985 of 2014 (W)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 29.06.1976 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN STATES OF KERALA AND KARNATAKA, AND PUBLISHED IN KARNATAKA GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY PART IV-2-C(II) VIDE NOTIFICATION NO.HD 70 TMI 71. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE 4TH SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT DATED 6.2.2009 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN STATE OF KERALA AND KARNATAKA, AND PUBLISHED IN KERALA GAZETTE EXTRAORADINARY VIDE NOTIFICATION, G.O.(P)NO.21/2009/TRAN. DATED 6.2.2009.

¶23

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.11.2013 IN W.P.(C) NO.8773 OF 2013 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶24

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 05.04.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER BEFORE THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN I.A.NO.4601 OF 2013 IN W.P.(C)NO.8210 OF 2013.

¶25

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 20.11.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, TRIVANDRUM. EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY PERMIT DATED 30.12.2013, SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, TRIVANDRUM.

¶26

EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 30.12.2013, SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECRETARY, STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, TRIVANDRUM.

¶27

EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D2/27643/STA/2013 PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 30.01.2014, RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER ON 22.02.2014. EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 24.12.2013 VIDE NO.D3/30414/STA/13.

¶28

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

PS TO JUDGE

ANU SIVARAMAN, JJ.

¶33

----------------------------------------------W.P(C).No.8985 of 2014

¶34

Dated this the 5^th January, 2016

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

This writ petition is filed seeking direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P5 application submitted by the petitioner for grant of regular permit on the route Mangalore-Kasaragode and for incidental reliefs. It is the case of the petitioner that he had applied for regular permit on the route Mangalore-Kasaragode-via-Ullal Bridge, ThokkoteManjeshwar, Mangalpady, Kumbala and back. The petitioner relies on Exhibit P3 judgment, whereby the right of private operators to apply for regular permits on the inter-state routes has been found in their favour. It is stated that the refusal on the part of the first respondent to consider Exhibit P5 application is absolutely unwarranted.

¶37

Heard learned Senior Counsel Smt.Sumathi Dandapani appearing for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the KSRTC and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2.

¶38

WP(C).8985/14

¶39

¶40

The first respondent had stated the pendency of an appeal against Exhibit P3 judgment as a reason for non consideration of the application filed by the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the writ appeal preferred against Exhibit P3 judgment has also been dismissed by judgment dated 14.12.2015 in W.A.No.1940 of 2013 and the SLP filed against the judgment in the writ appeal has also been dismissed on 16.12.2015. In view of the above facts, it is contended that Exhibit P5 application is to be considered immediately by the first respondent.

¶41

The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, which is impleaded as additional third respondent in this writ petition, has filed a counter affidavit contending that there is no vacancy on the route Kasaragode-Mangalore and therefore there is no vacancy to consider the application preferred by the petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that though permit was granted to the KSRTC, counter signature was refused by the S.T.A., Karnataka and therefore the KSRTC is not operating on the route. It is further contended that the route in question, going by the agreement in force, is to be operated by private operators and that the KSRTC has no claim for operation on the said route.

¶42

WP(C).8985/14 3

¶43

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the matter regarding the eligibility of the petitioner for permit has to be considered by the first respondent at the first instance. Exhibits P5 and P6 applications preferred by the petitioner shall therefore be taken up at the next meeting and the first respondent shall consider and pass orders thereon at the earliest. The petitioner as well as the KSRTC shall be heard before passing orders as directed above.

¶44

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶45

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

¶46

vgs6/5

S.A Wahab v. State Transport Authority Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.A Wahab v. 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

S.S. Pillai Vs Indian Oil Corporation

Suba Murugan Vs the Secretary, K.S.E.B.

T.P Abdulkhader Haji & Co. Vs the Commercial Tax Officer,Kasaragod Pin 671 121

M.v.Avarankutty Vs the Superintending Engineer

Abdu Vs the Perumanna Grama Panchayat

P. Krishnakumar Vs State of Kerala