Disposed

Ramakrishnan v. Shanavas

Kerala HC9 Nov 2021WA/1458/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against W.P. directing provisional bus timings pending a confidence. Bench held further hearing not needed as RTA has fixed timing conference; appellant directed to be heard at final conference fixing timings within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Revoked impugned judgment; directed Secretary RTA to include formal timing fixation subject in next meeting, provide appellant hearing, notify other operators, and take decision at conference within s

Ramakrishnan Vs Shanavas — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

W. A. No. 1458 of 2021 -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶5

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶7

TUESDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1943

¶8

WA NO. 1458 OF 2021

¶9

¶10

APPELLANT/S:

¶11

RAMAKRISHNAN AGED 53 YEARS S/O. BALAN NAIR, MELEPPATT HOUSE, AMAYUR, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD. BY ADV I.DINESH MENON

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

1 SHANAVAS

¶14

S/O SIDHEEQ, MULAKKAL HOUSE, CHERUTHURUTHY, THRISSUR - 679531.

¶15

2 THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY CUM REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, COLLECTORATE P. O., PALAKKAD678001.

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

SRI. K.P.HARISH, SR GP

¶18

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

W. A. No. 1458 of 2021 -2-

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

S. Manikumar, C.J.

¶22

Considering the reasons assigned in I. A. No. 1 of 2021, by order dated 03.11.2021, we granted leave to the appellant to file writ appeal against the judgment dated 25.11.2020 in W. P. (c) No. 19917 of 2020.

¶23

Before the writ court, respondent No. 1 herein has sought for a writ of mandamus, directing the Secretary, RTA, to implement Exhibit P1 proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad, in the meeting held on 24.12.2019, granted variation converting limited stop ordinary service as ordinary service, within a period of three weeks or within such other time permitted by this Court, by endorsing the granted variation on the permit of the route Thrissur – Pattambi, with KL 48 N 6596 (old vehicle KL 9 T 2430), with proposed timing or otherwise, with liberty to the Secretary, RTA, to conduct the timing conference later, and settle timing, after implementing Exhibit P1, if found required later, or otherwise.

¶24

W. A. No. 1458 of 2021 -3-

¶25

After considering the pleadings and submission of the learned

¶26

counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, by judgment in W. P. (c) No. 19917 of 2020 dated 25.11.2020, writ court issued the following directions:-

¶27

“a) The respondent shall obtain a report from the Motor Vehicles Inspector and ensure that the provisional timings offered by the petitioner and noted in Exhibit P2 do not clash with the timings of other vehicles operating on the same route. If there is a likelihood of a clash of timings, the timing shall be modified accordingly. On the basis of the same, the respondent shall issue varied regular permit to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that the timing so fixed shall be provisional in nature.

¶28

b) The above direction shall be subject to settlement of timings formally at a timing conference which shall be scheduled by the concerned authority. If the situation is not conducive to hold an open meeting in physical mode, the respondents may hold the conference virtually, if there are no other impediments.

¶29

c) It is also made clear that the issuance of the permit with provisional timing as directed in direction (a) above will not be seen as conferring any right on the petitioner to insist on the same timings at the time of settlement of the timings at the formal meeting to be convened by the Regional Transport

¶30

W. A. No. 1458 of 2021 -4-

¶31

Authority as per direction (b).”

¶32

Assailing the correctness of the said judgment, instant appeal

¶33

is filed on the following grounds:-

¶34

A. This Court by the impugned judgment disposed the writ petition directing that the timing suggested by the writ petitioner shall be treated as provisional timings after getting a report from the AMVI and ascertain whether there is time clash with the timings of existing operators also and also the convenience of the travelling public and to fix the same within a time frame on a provisional basis. Such issue of revised timings provisionally, when there is already a settled set of timings, is against Rule 212 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles and is not permissible as laid down by this Court in the decision reported in 1968 KLT 73 and 1973 KLT 266 and in all subsequent decisions. The direction contained to issue revised timings on a provisional basis is even beyond the prayer and direction contained in Exhibit P2 judgment. The same seriously affects the legal and legitimate rights of the appellants and the direction contained in the impugned judgment is an error of law apparent on the face of the records itself.

¶35

W. A. No. 1458 of 2021 -5-

¶36

B. In certain cases where fresh regular permit is already granted and the service could not operate for want of time schedule, after settlement of timings, this Court had occasion to direct issue of a set of timings provisionally in order to commence the operation pending settlement of timings. Such a procedure cannot be adopted in the case of services already operating with settled set of timings. The statute does not contemplate the procedure in issuing revised timings provisionally when there is already a settled set of timings. Rule 212 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules clearly mandates that before the revision of timings in respect of a service, opportunity have to be given to the concerned operators before effecting such changes. This also postulates that there cannot be any revision of timings on provisional basis and thereafter hearing objections. As far as 1^st respondent is concerned there is already a settled set of timings issued as per Annexure A1 and any change can be only in accordance with Rule 212 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules and by convening a timings conference in which operators have to be heard. Therefore the 1^st respondent is not entitled for any relief sought in the writ petition.

¶37

W. A. No. 1458 of 2021 -6-

¶38

Though the judgment in W. P. (c) No. 19917 of 2020 dated 25.11.2020 is impugned on the above grounds, by inviting the attention of this Court to the judgments in W. A. No. 936 of 2021 dated 09.08.2021 and W. A. No. 996 of 2021 dated 09.08.2021 and the proceedings of the RTA, Palakkad dated 15.01.2020, marked as Annexures A3, A4 and A5 respectively, Mr. I. Dinesh Menon, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the directions issued in the impugned judgment have been acted upon.

¶39

However, inviting attention of this Court to Annexure A5 proceedings of the Secretary, RTA, Palakkad, Order No. C3/8985/2019/P dated 15.01.2020, Mr. I. Dinesh Menon, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the provisional timing has already been fixed. He further submitted that formal timing conference is yet to be convened, and in such circumstances, appellant be provided with an opportunity of hearing, before fixing the final timing for operation of the vehicles.

¶40

Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is placed on record.

¶41

Mr. K. P. Harish, learned Senior Government Pleader,

¶42

W. A. No. 1458 of 2021 -7-

¶43

submitted that the timing conference was fixed in respect of various vehicles on 05.05.2021, but due to Covid - 19 conditions, the same could not be convened. He endorsed the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that as per the directions issued in W. P. (c) No. 19917 of 2020 dated 25.11.2020, provisional timing has already been fixed. Learned Senior Government Pleader further submitted that timing conference is fixed for next month.

¶44

Thus placing on record the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Senior Government Pleader, there is no need to delve into the issues raised in this writ appeal.

¶45

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad, is directed to include the subject of fixing the formal timing for the vehicles, covered under Annexure A5 Order No. C3/8985/2019/P dated 15.01.2020, in the next meeting.

¶46

Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad, is further directed to provide the appellant, an opportunity of hearing, and place all materials in support of his contention. He shall also issue notice to Mr. Shanavas, Mulakkal House, Cheruthuruthy, Thrissur, respondent No. 1, and other en-route operators, and take appropriate decision in

¶47

W. A. No. 1458 of 2021 -8-

¶48

the timing conference, in accordance with law, within 6 weeks from

¶49

the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Any decision taken in the timing conference be communicated to the parties.

¶50

Accordingly, writ appeal is disposed of.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

S. MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE

¶53

Sd/SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

///TRUE COPY///

P. A. TO JUDGE

W. A. No. 1458 of 2021 -9-

¶58

APPENDIX OF WA 1458/2021

¶59

PETITIONER ANNEXURE

¶60

Annexure A1	TRUE COPY OF THE KLT 883.	DECISION IN 1992(2)
Annexure A2	TRUE COPY OF THE KLJ 296.	DECISION IN 1995(1)
Annexure A3	TRUE COPY OF THE W.A.NO.936/2021	JUDGMENT IN DATED 9.8.2021.
Annexure A4	TRUE COPY OF THE W.A.NO.996/2021	JUDGMENT IN DATED 9.8.2021.
Annexure A5	TRUE COPY OF THE RTA, PALAKKAD DA	PROCEEDINGS OF THE TED 15.01.2020.

Ramakrishnan v. Shanavas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakrishnan v. Shanavas

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

Revenue Divisional Officer Vs Sibi Joseph

Sangeetha Society Management Corporate Aided Schools Vs the Government of Kerala

Human Rights and Social Welfare Forum Vs Union of India

We Build (P) Limited Vs State Bank of India

George K. Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed C. Vs the District Collector, Malappuram