Dismissed

John Mathew v. Kottayam District Consumer and Passenger Welfare Society

Kerala HC5 Jul 2018WA/1330/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal was raised against a single judge's direction to the Regional Transport Officer to consider a representation regarding stage carriage timing. The Court distinguished the cited precedent, noted the order required notice to other operators, and deemed the appeal inappropriate to entertain, ordering the authority to consider the representation on merit.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was disposed of with a direction to the Regional Transport Officer to consider the petitioner's representation on its merit and decide on convening a timing conference amongst interest

John Mathew Vs Kottayam District Consumer and Passenger… — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.HRISHIKESH ROY

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶7

WA.No. 1330 of 2018 IN WPC. 17563/2018

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 17563/2018 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 30-05-2018

¶9

APPELLANT(S)/2ND RESPONDENT:

¶10

JOHN MATHEW, VAMPALKKAL HOUSE, NEDUMKUNNAM P.O., KARIKACHAL, KOTTAYAM - 686 086.

¶11

BY ADV.SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER & 1ST RESPONDENT:

¶13

1. KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CONSUMER AND PASSENGER WELFARE SOCIETY, MUTTANBALAM P.O., KANJIKUZHI, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, P.R.RADHAKRIHNAN NAIR.

¶14

2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002.

¶15

R BY SMT.G.CHITRA

¶16

R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P. SANTHOSH KUMAR

¶17

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

HRISHIKESH ROY, AG.C.J. &

¶19

A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶20

W.A.NO.1330 OF 2018

¶21

Dated this the 5^th day of July, 2018

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

¶24

The appellant was the second respondent in the W.P.(C)No.19448 of 2018. The Writ Petition was filed seeking a direction for disposal of the Ext.P1 representation of the permit holder of the stage carriage bearing registration No.KL33/H-2601 operating on the route Kottayam-Vadasserykara. According to the applicant Society, the stage carriage vehicle bearing registration No.KL-33/H-2601 was operating with the running time of 2 minutes per kilometer. In the representation, it is case of the applicant Society that the time allotted to the aforesaid stage carriage should be atleast 2.5 minutes as applicable to ordinary services since otherwise there was possibility of the number of accidents rising in the area, especially during the rainy season. The request in the representation was essentially for convening a timing conference, where these aspects could be considered by the Regional Transport Officer, Kottayam.

¶25

The Ext.P1 representation was filed on 22.5.2018, and when the same was not considered expeditiously, the applicant moved the High Court. The learned single Judge at the stage of admission itself, after hearing the learned Government Pleader, disposed of the Writ Petition with the following order:

¶26

“3. In the above view of the matter, there will be a direction to the 1^st respondent to take up, consider and pass orders on Exhibit P1

¶27

W.A.No.1330/2018

¶28

¶29

representation with notice to the 2^nd respondent also. In case any refixation of running time is found necessary, other operators on the route shall also be put on notice.”

¶30

Assailing the legality of the impugned direction, Sri.Sajeev Kumar K.Gopal, the learned counsel for the appellant, placing reliance on the decision in M.C.Kumaran v. K.M.Jacob and Another (1995 KHC 214), submits that since the Ext.P1 application was not a statutory application, the learned single Judge should not have issued direction for consideration of the representation. He further contends that when such direction for consideration is issued by the High Court, the Authorities would inevitably treat it as a direction in favour of the writ petitioner and accordingly, alter the stage carriage timing, which will impact the appellant who is operating in the route for the last many decades.

¶31

It may however be noted herein that in M.C.Kumaran v. K.M.Jacob and Another (supra), the court was considering an application for changing the timing for a stage carriage operator, at the instance of a rival operator but in the case before us, the Ext.P1 application was a simple request to the Regional Transport Officer to exercise his discretion, for convening a conference, where the issue of clash of timing with the other stage carriage operator, could be considered. Therefore, the ratio of the judgment cited by Sri.Sajeev Kumar K.Gopal, the learned counsel for the appellant will not apply in the present proceeding.

¶32

It is also necessary to take note of the direction issued by the learned single Judge which firstly, requires consideration of the representation for convening a hearing conference and if any order is to be passed for change of running time of the existing stage carriage operator, all the other operators on the route were

¶33

W.A.No.1330/2018

¶34

¶35

required to be put on notice, especially the second respondent.

¶36

It is therefore clear enough that the learned single Judge never issued any specific direction for change of the timing for the members of the petitioner Society or alteration of the timing of the second respondent holding the stage carriage permit bearing No.KL-33/H-2601. Moreover, the interest of the second respondent was adequately protected by the learned Judge. In such circumstances, we deem it inappropriate to entertain this Writ Appeal. The same is thus disposed of with the observation that the Regional Transport Officer, Kottayam should consider the representation of the writ petitioner on its own merit and more particularly as one that requires him to consider as to whether or not, the timing conference should be convened amongst the interested operators. It is ordered accordingly.

¶37

Sd/HRISHIKESH ROY ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶38

Sd/A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶39

prp/5/7/18

John Mathew v. Kottayam District Consumer and Passenger Welfare Society

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

John Mathew v. Kottayam District Consumer and Passenger Welfare Society

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Durgadas Vs Sri.Subros Biswas

Jalaja Unnikrishnan Vs the Authorized Officer, Pathanamthitta District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Suresh Kumar K.P Vs Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd.

The University of Calicut Vs Global Institute of Architecture

Mahatma Gandhi University Vs Muhazin K.V.

The University of Calicut Vs Dr. Jagannathan.P.K