Dismissed

Palakkad Jilla Bus Operators Association v. Government of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Dec 2017WA/2350/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge dismissal of a writ petition challenging RTO proceedings was upheld. The court held that identifying intermediate points on a notified route did not amount to a modification of a scheme, thereby excluding the applicability of Section 102 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed with no interference in the judgment dated 07-07-2017.

Palakkad Jilla Bus Operators Association Vs Government… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939 WA.No. 2350 of 2017 () IN WP(C).33075/2016 --------------------------------------------

¶2

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 33075/2016 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 07-07-2017

¶3

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

¶4

PALAKKAD JILLA BUS OPERATORS ASSOCIATION, MUNICIPAL BUS STAND BUILDING, R.S.ROAD, PALAKKAD-678001, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY K.RAVINDRAKUMAR.

¶5

BUS OPERATORS ORGANIZATION, DISTRICT UNIT OF THE ALL KERALA BUS OPERATORS ORGANIZATION, S.N.BUILDING, G.B.ROAD, PALAKKAD-678001, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, T.GOPINATHAN.

¶6

BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶9

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD-678001.

¶10

THE SECRETARY, THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD-678001.

¶11

THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANANGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶12

G.VENUGOPAL, 2/85, NORTH STREET, KODUMBU POST, PALAKKAD-679303.

¶13

K.MURALIDHARAN, KALAMADAN HOUSE, AKATHETHARA, PALAKKAD-678008.

¶14

PONNANI TALUK PRIVATE BUS OPERATORS ASSOCIATION, MVM HAJEE BUILDING, KUTTIPURAM ROAD, EDAPPAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, T.NARAYANAN-679576. R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.CHACKO, SC, KERALA STATE ROAD

¶15

TRANSPORT CORPN. R BY SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER R BY SRI.O.D.SIVADAS

¶16

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.A.No.2350 of 2017

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES

¶20

ANN.A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD.7.7.2017 IN WPC NO.33075 OF 2016.

TRUE COPY

P.S.TO JUDGE

css/

Antony Dominic, Ag.C.J. & Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

¶25

W.A.No.2350 of 2017

¶26

Dated this the 11^th day of December, 2017

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

Antony Dominic, Ag.C.J.

¶29

This appeal is filed by the petitioners in WPC No.33075 of 2016. In the writ petition the challenge was against Ext.P6 proceedings of the second respondent on the ground that the same was in violation of Section 102 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The contention was rejected and the writ petition was dismissed. It is this judgment which is impugned before us.

¶30

We heard the counsel for the appellant, the learned Government Pleader, the Standing Counsel for the KSRTC and the counsel appearing for the party respondents.

¶31

The short question that is raised before us also is regarding the applicability of Section 102 of the Motor Vehicles Act. A reading of Section 102 shows that cancellation or modification of a scheme, notified by the Government, is fully within the domain of the State Government alone, provided

¶32

W.A.No.2350 of 2017 2

¶33

Section 102 thereof. If as stated by the appellants, Ext.P6 amounts to modification of the notified scheme, certainly, it was beyond the powers of the RTO to have done so. But a reading of Ext.P6 shows that by the said exercise, all that the RTA has done was that it has identified the intermediate points of the notified roads passing through Palakkad District at Sl.Nos.6,7, 9, 21, 23, 24 and 25, mentioned in Ext.P1 G.O.(P) No.42 of 2009 dated 14.7.2009, which is the notified distance. Such an exercise of identification of important intermediate points in a notified route, to our understanding, does not amount to modification of a scheme, attracting the provisions of Section 102 of the Motor Vehicles Act, as found by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment. The writ appeal is dismissed.

¶34

sd/-Antony Dominic Acting Chief Justice

¶35

sd/- Dama Seshadri Naidu Judge css/ true copy

¶36

P.S.TO JUDGE

Palakkad Jilla Bus Operators Association v. Government of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palakkad Jilla Bus Operators Association v. Government of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jimmy Joseph Vs Sukumaran

K.G.Muraleedhara Menon Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs Janaki Amma

V.K.Nityanandan Vs S. Ratnakumaran, Managing Director, Kerala State Co-Operative Rubber Marketing Federation Ltd.

Gail (India) Ltd. Vs Komalavally

P. Gangadhara Alva Vs Icar - Central Plantation Crops Research Institute