Dismissed

Indira Devi, v. the Secretary

Kerala HC2 Nov 2023WP(C)/14451/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash an order refixing timings for a stage carriage. The Court held that since no objections were received from the petitioner within the notice period, there was no violation of natural justice. It also found no cause of action as no infringement of rights was disclosed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with a direction to approach the State Transport Appellate Tribunal under the statutory revision remedy.

Indira Devi, Vs the Secretary — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 14451 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

INDIRA DEVI,
AGED 65 YEARS, W/O. BALAKRISHNAN,
PULLAT, CHEMBUTHARA, PATTIKKAD,
THRISSUR, PIN – 680652.

¶8

BY ADVS.
 SRI. P. DEEPAK
 SMT. NAZRIN BANU

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1THE SECRETARY,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
THRISSUR, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE,
THRISSUR, PIN – 680003.

¶11

2V. P. ANNA SHAJI,
W/O. PETER MATHEW, EDAPPARA HOUSE,
PATTIKKAD P. O., THRISSUR, PIN – 679325.

¶12

3K. K. SURESH KUMAR,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER (ENFORCEMENT),
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, THRISSUR, PIN – 680003.

¶13

BY ADV.
 SRI. S. GOPINATHAN – SR. GP
 SRI. K. V. GOPINATHAN NAIR - GP

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO. 14451 OF 2023

¶16

¶17

DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

¶18

W.P.(C) No.14451 of 2023

¶19

Dated this the 2^nd day of November, 2023

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the order in Exhibit P-2 dated 18.03.2023 whereby the timings for the operation of the stage carriage bearing registration No. KL-27A-3779 operating on the route Peechi Dam –

¶22

Thrissur (via) Kannara, Pattikkad, Mannuthy had been refixed on an application filed by the 2^nd respondent for the said purpose.

¶23

The 2^nd respondent, regular permit holder for the said stage carriage on the route mentioned above filed the application for variation of timings as proposed in the application. In the application, the permit holder 2^nd respondent pointed out that due to introduction of various KSRTC (Kerala State Road Transport Corporation) services, the time gap between the services had decreased and hence the timings should be re-organised in respect of her vehicle. The said permit holder, respondent No.2 was heard on 07.02.2023. During the hearing it was pointed out that the service of another stage carriage, KL-11-9434 had stopped and the

¶24

WP(C) NO. 14451 OF 2023

¶25

¶26

operator had surrendered the the permit. Therefore, the time gap of KL-11-9434 could be used for re-organising the time limit for stage carriage KL-27A-3779. The timings proposed in the application were notified for inviting objections from the stage carriage operators. Fifteen days time was granted for filing objections. However, no objections were filed by either of the existing operators including the petitioner. Therefore, vide Exhibit P-2 order dated 18.03.2023 the timings for the stage carriage KL27A-3779 were re-fixed and notified. The 1^st respondent Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur has taken note of the fact that despite having issued notice for filing objections, no objections was received even after fifteen days and no objection was received thereafter till finalisation of the order vide Exhibit P-2.

¶27

The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that without calling for a timing conference, the application of the 2^nd respondent should not have been considered and and the timing should not have been refixed. She also submits that there has been violation of the principles of natural justice and the petitioner had not heard being an existing state carriage operator operating on the route Ayyamthole - Peechi and the petitioner’s stage carriage

¶28

WP(C) NO. 14451 OF 2023

¶29

¶30

passing Thrissur at 10.02 am to Peechi Dam.

¶31

I do not find substance in the contentions of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that there was a violation of the principles of natural justice in notifying the timings for the stage carriage operation KL-27A-3779 vide Exhibit P-2 order. It is not in dispute that the objections were invited from the existing operators and Associations but, nobody came forward to file objections within the time of fifteen days and even thereafter no objections were received till the impugned order in Exhibit P-2 got finalised. The petitioner chose not to file any objections, she cannot complaint about violation of principles of natural justice.

¶32

From reading of the writ petition it is also not evident that how the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18.03.2023 in Exhibit P-2. The petitioner ought to have disclosed infringement of any of fundamental right or legal right for having a cause of action to file the present writ petition. Without disclosing such cause of action, this petition even otherwise is not maintainable. I, therefore, find no substance in the writ petition which is hereby dismissed. The petitioner has a statutory remedy of revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal against the order in Exhibit P-2 which

¶33

WP(C) NO. 14451 OF 2023

¶34

¶35

is equally efficacious statutory remedy. Therefore, there is no

¶36

substance and the present writ petition is hereby dismissed.

¶37

Sd/DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE

¶38

Svn

¶39

WP(C) NO. 14451 OF 2023

¶40

¶41

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14451/2023

¶42

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS

¶43

EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT ISSUED
TO THE PETITIONER ON 15.07.2020

¶44

EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 18.03.2023

¶45

EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED
03.02.2023

¶46

2ND & 1ST RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS

¶47

EXHIBIT R2(a)TRUE COPY OF THE TIMINGS ISSUED TO THE
RESPONDENT WAY BACK ON 2.12.2012

¶48

EXHIBIT R2(b)TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23.1.2023

¶49

EXHIBIT R1(a)COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 03.02.2023
OF RTA, THRISSUR

Indira Devi, v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indira Devi, 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

Mohammed Sameer T.V Vs the Traffic Regulatory Committee

C.K. Sadanandan, Vs the Tahsildar

Sajeesh K Alias Sajeesh Kodoth, Vs Tahasildar

M/S. White Metals Asperos, Vs the Commissioner of Customs

Mathrubhumi Printing & Publishing Co. Ltd, Vs State of Kerala

Xx Vs the State of Kerala