Disposed

Sreejith M.T v. the Secretary

Kerala HC9 Sept 2021WP(C)/805/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the second respondent's bus running at 10 A.M. despite an allotted 9.50 A.M. departure time. The court suspected forgery in documents supporting the second respondent's claim of a corrected time and directed the first respondent to ensure compliance with 9.50 A.M., verify records, and report suspected forgery to police for investigation.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to the first respondent to ensure the vehicle departs at 9:50 AM and to report alleged forgery to the police for investigation within 15 days.

Sreejith M.T Vs the Secretary — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 18TH BHADRA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 805 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 SREEJITH M.T AGED 45 YEARS MANGALATH HOUSE, THANNISSERY, THRISSUR.

¶8

2 SHYNI M.C, KALLADA HOUSE, SANTHI ROAD, THANNISSERY, THRISSUR.

¶9

BY ADV K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN-680 004

¶12

2 K.P. MOHANAN, KATTIKULAM HOUSE, EDATHURUTHY, KATTOOR, PIN-680 702

¶13

BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.P.DEEPAK

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SR.GP SUNIL V.K

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.08.2021, THE COURT ON 9/9/2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.(C) No.805/2021

JUDGMENT

Petitioners are existing operators operating service on the Irinjalakuda Thriprayar sector. According to the petitioners, the second respondent, who is also conducting service on the route Irinjalakuda – Thriprayar by stage carriage No.KL-47/B 3213, was allotted the time of the departure as 9.50 am from Thriprayar. Petitioners allege that violating the above time fixed, the second respondent has been running his bus departing from Thriprayar at 10 .a.m., This has caused serious prejudice to other enroute operators, it is claimed The petitioners further contend that, departure time allotted to the petitioners from Thriprayar was 9.50. a.m. which is reinforced by Ext.P1 reply issued by the Motor Vehicles Department under the Right to Information Act . Hence, complaints were filed by petitioners as Exts.P2 and P3 before the Motor Vehicles Department, requesting them to take necessary action to ensure that the second respondent does not violate the time schedule. Alleging that no action was taken, the petitioners have approached this court.

¶21

The second respondent appeared and filed detailed counter affidavit affirming that the time allotted to this vehicle KL-08/W 5226 which was replaced by KL-47/B3213, from Thriprayar was 10 a.m., since 2004 onwards. He relied on the proceedings of the first respondent dated 29/11/2004 produced as Ext. R2(a). Subsequently, by proceedings of the first respondent

¶22

W.P.(C) No.805/2021

¶23

¶24

dated 22/12/2009 the permit issued to operate in the Irinjalakuda- Thriprayar route was settled. The route was varied by Ext.R2(c) proceedings. The first respondent convened a timing conference on 7/7/2010 to settle the timings on the route as varied, vide Ext.R2(c) decision. The proceedings issued thereupon is Ext.R2 (d). Second respondent contended that however, while drawing up Ext.R2(d) proceedings, the first respondent committed a mistake by specifying the departure time from Thriprayar as 9.50 AM instead of 10 AM. Hence, an application for rectification of the timing was submitted on 23/7/2020. The application was entertained and the departure time was corrected as 10 A.M.from Thriprayar with immediate effect and notified by the first respondent on 5/10/2010, evidenced by Ext.R2(e). Hence, it was contended that, the allegation of the petitioners was incorrect.

¶25

Petitioners filed reply affidavit, wherein the above contentions were vehemently opposed and it was reiterated that the claim of the second respondent that the departure time allotted to him was 10 am since 2004 was incorrect. To substantiate it, the petitioner relied on Ext.P4 produced along with the reply affidavit, which was the relevant page of the agenda of the Regional Transport Authority dated 21/1/2020 in which item No.82 was a request submitted by the second respondent seeking modification of the time schedule from the existing time of 9.50 itself. The petitioners contended that this clearly shows that the second respondent was aware that the departure time was 9.50 am.

¶26

The first respondent has filed a statement through the Government

¶27

W.P.(C) No.805/2021

¶28

¶29

Pleader. In the above statement it was asserted that the endorsement in Ext.R2(e) appears to be not genuine and no further orders have been passed pursuant to Ext.R2(b). Hence, R2(e) became stale by efflux of time. The second respondent was aware of it and he filed application dated 28/12/2017 requesting to issue timings pursuant to Ext.R2(e). The request submitted by the second respondent before the RTO, Thrissur was produced as Ext.R1(a). There was nothing on record to show that proposals in Ext.R2(e) were finalised and the proposed changes in the time schedule were approved by the competent authority.

¶30

Ext.P1 reply given by the Motor Vehicles Department under RTI Act clearly show that on 7/7/2010, though a timing conference was convened, the timing of departure in relation to the second respondent's vehicle was fixed as 9.50.a.m., Thereafter, on 23/7/2010, the second respondent submitted an application stating that departure time was 10 a.m. and that it may be corrected accordingly. The proposal was notified and against that notification another enroute operator had filed MVAA No. 158/2010 and STAT directed the Motor Vehicles Authorities to take appropriate action on his request. These materials finally concluded that there are nothing on record to show that the timing fixed as 9.50.a.m. on 7/7/2010 was varied at any point of time.

¶31

The second respondent essentially relied on the endorsement made on Ext.R2(e) as correction made in the departure time as 10 a.m. The entire records produced by the second respondent itself and the statement filed by the State clearly indicate that there is absolutely nothing on record or

¶32

W.P.(C) No.805/2021

¶33

¶34

proceedings issued by the authority to substantiate the endorsement on Ext.R2(e). The very basis of the contention of the second respondent that his departure time was 10 a.m.since 2004, is belied by his own documents. Having considered this, prima facie it appears that Ext.R2(e) is a suspicious document. There is every reason to suspect that forgery has been committed and claim was set up on the basis of the forged document. Having considered this, I am inclined to direct the Motor Vehicles Department to ensure that the vehicle of the second respondent strictly follows the time schedule fixed by the Motor Vehicles Department. Appropriate action is liable to be taken in case of breach. In the light of the suspected forgery, which is revealed, I feel that this is a matter which requires investigation by the police. Having considered this, I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions;

¶35

1). The first respondent shall ensure that the stage carriage No.KL 47B-3213 departs from Thriprayar at 9.50.am. If there is any violation, strict action shall be taken.

¶36

2). The first respondent shall again verify with the available records, as to whether there is any evidence to show that the timings fixed at 9.50.AM in timing conference dated 7/7/2010 was changed at any point of time thereafter. If it is not so, definitely, the first respondent shall report the matter within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the SHO of the concerned police station, with the relevant records and shall place appropriate complaint for effective investigation.

¶37

W.P.(C) No.805/2021

¶38

¶39

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the above directions.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS

Judge

dpk

W.P.(C) No.805/2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 805/2021

¶47

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶48

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DATED 30.11.2019.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 12.6.2020.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 11.6.2020.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE AGENDA OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY DATED 21.1.2020 REGARDING ITEM NO.82.

¶49

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶50

EXHIBIT R2(a):	A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIST RESPONDENT DATED 29/11/2004.
EXHIBIT R2(b):	A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 02/12/2008.
EXHIBIT R2(c):	A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RTA, THRISSUR DATED 22/12/2009.
EXHIBIT R2(d):	A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 07/07/2010 (WRONGLY GIVEN AS 07/07/2008).
EXHIBIT R2(d):	A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 07/07/2010 (WRONGLY GIVEN AS 07/07/2008).
EXHIBIT R2(e):	A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 05/10/2010.
EXHIBIT R2(f):	A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 18/10/2010 FILED BY SRI.M.RAMAN.
EXHIBIT R2(g):	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 23/08/2013 IN MVARP NO.158 OF 2010.

Sreejith M.T v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreejith M.T v. the Secretary

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

Rema.S., Vs State of Kerala

Baby.K.v Vs the Director

Babu Sebastian Vs Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd.

Santhosh Kumar P.R Vs the Principal Secretary to the Government

Sajeev Kumar K.S Vs State of Kerala

Antony Mathew Vs P.M. Mathew