Disposed

M.P.Basheer v. the Regional Transport Authority

Kerala HC27 Nov 2018WP(C)/27356/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the Regional Transport Authority to consider the petitioner's requests regarding fare stage fixation due to traffic deviations and new bus stands, ensuring public notice and representation of affected parties within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to 1st respondent to consider Exhibits P1-P5 with public notice and pass appropriate orders within three months.

M.P.Basheer Vs the Regional Transport Authority — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY,THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 27356 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

M.P.BASHEER, AGED 59 YEARS, MUNDAKKAL HOUSE, THANGALAM P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, SECRETARY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PRIVATE BUS OPERATORS ASSOCIATION, KOTHAMANGALAM UNIT.

¶8

BY ADV. SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MINI CIVIL STATION, MUVATTUPUZHA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN-686 661.

¶11

2 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MINI CIVIL STATION, MUVATTUPUZHA-686 661.

¶12

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER: BIMAL K.NATH

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No. 27356 of 2018

¶15

-2-

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The petitioner, who is a stage carriage operator on the route Kothamangalam-Perumbavoor, who is the Secretary of Ernakulam District Private Bus Operators Association, Kothamangalam Unit, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider Ext.P1 request dated 05.03.2018, Ext.P2 request dated 05.03.2018, Ext.P3 request dated 09.03.2018, Ext.P4 request dated 26.02.2018, Ext.P5 dated 09.03.2018 and take a decision regarding the fixation of fare stages, in accordance with the actual route distance on the routes highlighted therein, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.

¶18

On 13.08.2018, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Senior Government Pleader sought time to get instructions.

¶19

A statement has been filed on behalf of the 2^nd

¶20

respondent. Paragraphs 2 to 4 of the said statement reads thus;

¶21

WP(C).No. 27356 of 2018

¶22

-3-

¶23

“2. It is submitted that the writ petition is filed against the non consideration of the representation submitted by the petitioner to re-fix the fare stages due to the introduction of traffic deviation and construction and opening of new bus stands at Kothamangalam. The High range bus stand at Kothamangalam was sanctioned by RTA Muvattupuzha during the year 2004. Proper use of the new bus stands were not implemented even after a decade due to various reasons. On 09.09.2016, the Municipal authorities had forwarded a resolution regarding traffic modification proposed to be implemented at Kothamangalam town and RTA Muvattupuzha in its meeting dated 17.11.2016 considering the matter and adjourned the matter, by directing Secretary RTA to convene a traffic regulatory committee meeting with all concerned.

¶24

Accordingly a meeting was proposed to be convened on 22.03.2017 but could not be convened due to the interference of some peoples including bus crews and others. Again a meeting of traffic regulatory committee was conducted on 11.04.2017 but could not attained finality due to the different opinions of the representatives. In this circumstances the matter was brought to the notice of Deputy Transport Commissioner Ernakulam who is the member of RTA Muvattupuzha and also to the Hon'ble District Collector Ernakulam. Subsequently a meeting has

¶25

WP(C).No. 27356 of 2018

¶26

-4-

¶27

been conducted at Ernakulam Collectorate on 19.01.2018 in the presence of the Hon'ble MLA of Kothamangalam, District Collector, Kothamangalam Municipal Vice Chairman, Representatives of various Political Parties, Merchant Association Representatives, Bus Operators and Police Authorities and decided to implement the reforms as trial. Meanwhile the said representations were received from the petitioner to re-fix the fare stages due to the introduction of traffic modification. In this case the total distance between any of the two termini's was not seen changed (ie, between Kothamangalam and Perumbavoor or Kothamangalam to Muvattupuzha etc) and the additional distance claimed to be covered is due to the introduction of operating stands constructed by the local authority as per Rule 344 of Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules. It is submitted that the direction has given to Joint RTO Kothamangalam for a detailed route enquiry report in this matter, for the consideration of the Regional Transport Authority Muvattupuzha in the next meeting.

¶28

It is submitted that the total distance between any of the two termini's was not seen changed and the additional distance claimed to be covered is due to the introduction of operating stands constructed by the local authority as per Rule 344 of KMV Rules. New bus stands at Kothamangalam were sanctioned by RTA Muvattupuzha during the year 2004 and the petitioner

¶29

WP(C).No. 27356 of 2018

¶30

-5-

¶31

has not objected the sanction at that time. The petitioner has not pointed out the matter even in the meeting held on 19.01.2018 convened by the District Collector.”

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶33

also the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 2^nd respondent has to place Exts.P1 to P5 requests before the 1^st respondent Regional Transport Authority for appropriate orders.

¶35

The learned Senior Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that the 2^nd respondent shall place Exts.P1 to P5 requests before the 1^st respondent for consideration and thereafter, the said Authority shall consider and pass appropriate orders, with notice to the petitioner, other affected operators, the representative of KSRTC and also the general public, after issuing a public notice.

¶36

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed

¶37

WP(C).No. 27356 of 2018

¶38

-6-

¶39

of by directing the 1^st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P1 to P5 requests made by the petitioner, with notice to the petitioner, other affected operators, the representative of KSRTC and also the general public, after issuing a public notice. Necessary orders in this regard shall be passed, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶40

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the claim in Exts.P1 to P5 and it is for the 1^st respondent to take an appropriate decision, strictly in accordance with law.

¶41

ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶42

bpr

¶43

WP(C).No. 27356 of 2018

¶44

-7-

¶45

APPENDIX

¶46

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶47

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 05.03.2018. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 05.03.2018. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 09.03.2018. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 26.02.2018. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 09.03.2018.

¶48

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶49

//TRUE COPY//

¶50

P.A. TO JUDGE

M.P.Basheer v. the Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.P.Basheer 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sherly Chacko Vs Anicadu Service Co-Operative Bank

Omana Vs the District Collector, Pathanamthitta

K.Ravunni Vs the Secretary, Pattambi Govt. Employees Co-Operative Society Ltd. No.P 614

Siddique Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Antony Lasar Vs Secretary

Sobhakumari L. Vs State of Kerala