Disposed

Raju v. the Regional Transport Authority

Kerala HC5 Mar 2019WP(C)/3462/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority to place the petitioner's representation before the Authority with an officer's report. The Authority was ordered to decide the matter with notice to all parties within six weeks, without the Court expressing a view on merits.

What did the court decide?

Direct the 2nd respondent to place Ext.P3 with Field Officer's report before the 1st respondent for a decision within six weeks with notice to relevant parties.

Raju Vs the Regional Transport Authority — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE 05TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 3462 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

RAJU

¶8

AGED 48 YEARS S/O.PORINCHU, CHIRAYATH HOUSE, PARALAM, CHERPU, THRISSUR.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THRISSUR-680002.

¶12

2 THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR-680002.

¶13

3 JAISON C.I S/O.INASU, CHIRAYATH THARAYIL HOUSE, P.O.KANJANI, THRISSUR-680612.

¶14

4 THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER GURUVAYOOR-680101.

¶15

5 THE S.I. OF POLICE CHAVAKKAD POLICE STATION-680506.

¶16

BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.K.P.HARISH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

W.P.(C)No.3462 of 2019

¶19

:-2-:

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

The petitioner and the 3^rd respondent are stage

¶22

carriage operators. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the

¶23

2^nd respondent Secretary of the 1^st respondent Regional Transport Authority to place Ext.P3 representation together with the report of the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector before the 1^st respondent Regional Transport Authority and further direct the said Authority to take appropriate proceedings against the 3^rd respondent under Section

¶24

86(i)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for

¶25

operating the stage carriage in breach of the conditions specified in the permit issued to him.

¶26

The petitioner has also sought for a writ of

¶27

mandamus commanding respondents 2, 4 and 5 to ensure that the 3^rd respondent operates his stage

¶28

W.P.(C)No.3462 of 2019

¶29

:-3-:

¶30

carriage on the route Anchanangadi-Thrissur,

¶31

strictly in accordance with the time schedule in Ext.P2.

¶32

On 14.2.2019 when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Senior Government Pleader took notice on admission for respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5. Urgent notice on admission by special messenger was ordered to the 3^rd respondent returnable by 19.2.2019. Learned Senior Government Pleader sought time to get instructions.

¶33

A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3^rd respondent, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition.

¶34

petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5 and also the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

¶35

During the course of arguments, the learned

¶36

W.P.(C)No.3462 of 2019

¶37

:-4-:

¶38

counsel for the petitioner would submit that since Ext.P3 representation made by the petitioner is now

¶39

pending consideration, the 2^nd respondent may be directed to place it before the 1^st respondent Regional Transport Authority and that Authority

¶40

may be directed to take a decision on that representation, with notice to the petitioner and

¶41

also to the 3^rd respondent.

¶42

Learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent would

¶43

point out that the allegations levelled against the

¶44

said respondent in Ext.P3 representation are without any factual basis, as pointed out in the counter affidavit filed by the said respondent and that, the 3^rd respondent may be given an opportunity of being heard, while the 1^st respondent considering Ext.P3 representation.

¶45

The learned Senior Government Pleader would

¶46

submit that the 2^nd respondent shall place Ext.P3

¶47

W.P.(C)No.3462 of 2019

¶48

:-5-:

¶49

representation before the 1^st respondent Regional Transport Authority along with the report of the Field Officer and thereafter the 1^st respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, with notice to the petitioner, the 3^rd respondent and other enroute operators.

¶50

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions;

¶51

(i) Within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, the 2^nd respondent shall obtain a report of the Field Officer on Ext.P3 representation made by the petitioner (if not already obtained) and thereafter, place it before the 1^st respondent Regional Transport Authority for consideration. (ii) The 1^st respondent Regional Transport Authority shall thereafter take an appropriate decision on Ext.P3 representation, with notice to the petitioner, the 3^rd respondent and other enroute operators, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of six weeks.

¶52

W.P.(C)No.3462 of 2019

¶53

:-6-:

¶54

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything as to the merits of the objection made by the petitioner in Ext.P3 representation or the contentions taken by the 3^rd respondent in the counter affidavit and it is for the 1^st respondent to take appropriate decision,

¶55

strictly in accordance with law.

Sd/-

ANIL K.NARENDRAN

JUDGE

ami/

W.P.(C)No.3462 of 2019

¶61

:-7-:

¶62

APPENDIX

¶63

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶64

EXHIBIT P1 A ROUGH SKETCH OF THE ROUTES.

¶65

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE TIME SCHEDULE ISSUED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT'S STAGE CARRIAGE KL-08-BF-2760 (FORMERLY KRH-8163) ON THE ROUTE ANCHANANGADI-THRISSUR.

¶66

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 5.1.2018 ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶67

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 28.12.2018 ADDRESSED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

¶68

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.07.2018 IN WPC NO.22045 OF 2018.

Raju v. the Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju 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

Bindhu.K Vs State of Kerala

Anithkumar K. Vs the Secretary Regional Transport

Ruban Antony Vs Regional Transport Authority, Kannur

Sushama M., Vs the General Manager

Don Trittu Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Muhammad Shan Vs the Deputy Tahasildar