Disposed

Harun P, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Oct 2023WP(C)/25795/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition where petitioners sought directions for bus operators to ply specified routes. Finding that authorities had reported compliance and promised strict inspections, the Court noted the grievance was redressed and issued a direction to ensure 50% trips continue via the designated route.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to ensure stage carriages operate 50% of trips through the Kalvari Hills route as per permit conditions.

Harun P, Vs State of Kerala — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 6^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 14TH ASWINA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 25795 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 HARUN P, AGED 33 YEARS

¶8

S/O HARIDASAN, RESIDING AT PARAMBIL HOUSE, MANNUR. P O KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 673 328.

¶9

2 SUMESH P.M, AGED 36 YEARS

¶10

S/O DASAN, RESIDING AT SOWBAGIYA DARSANAM, SREEPURI ROAD, MANNUR. P.O, KOZHIKODE' DISTRICT, PIN – 673 328

¶11

3 HEBISH MAMBAYIL, AGED 43 YEARS

¶12

S/O BALAKRISHNAN M, RESIDING AT THARAYIL HOUSE,

¶13

MANNUR.P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 673 328.

¶14

4 SHANMUGHAN PILAKKATTU, AGED 69 YEARS

¶15

S/O KUTTAN, RESIDING AT KANAMKOLIL HOUSE, MANNUR. P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN – 673 328.

¶16

BY ADV T.H.ARAVIND

¶17

RESPONDENTS:

¶18

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 001.

¶19

2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION P.O, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673 020.

¶20

3 REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE (CALICUT) REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE (RTO), CIVIL STATION, MALAPARAMBA, KERALA, PIN – 673 020.

¶21

SRI. S. GOPINATHAN, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

W.P.(C) No. 25795/2023

¶24

: 2 :

¶25

DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

¶26

--------------------------------------------------------W.P.(C). No. 25795 of 2023

¶27

Dated this the 6^th day of October, 2023.

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following

¶30

reliefs:

¶31

To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the 2^nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the Exhibits P4 representation filed by the petitioners within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court;

¶32

To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the 3^rd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the Exhibits P5 representation filed by the petitioners within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court;

¶33

To direct the 3^rd respondent to pass appropriate orders directing the bus operators to provide enough services through the Kottakkunnu - Kalvari Hills route;

¶34

To issue a direction to the 3^rd respondent to ensure that all the city services on this route to retain their 50% of the total trips (via) Kalvari Hills as directed in Exhibit P2.

¶35

The grievance of the petitioners is that the bus operators who

¶36

are having permits to ply through Kottakkunnu where the petitioners

¶37

W.P.(C) No. 25795/2023 : 3 :

¶38

are residing, are not plying through the said route; but they are plying in a deviated route to yield more profit ignoring the conditions of permits granted to them. Even though they have filed Exhibits P4 and P5 representations dated 21.07.2023 before respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively, no action has been taken.

¶39

The learned Government Pleader has filed a statement for

¶40

and on behalf of the third respondent. Paragraph Nos. 3 to 6 read thus:

¶41

It is respectfully submitted that, a discussion has been done by the Samara Samithi, Departments of Revenue, Motor Vehicle and Bus owners Association and by Exhibit P2 Proceedings of 3" respondent dated 08.03.2006 it was decided to conduct 50% trip through Kottakunnu-Kalvari Hills and other 50% through the Byepass. It is true that the petitioners and Bus Passengers Association have filed Exhibit P4 and P5 complaints against trip curtailment of Kottakunnu - Kalvari Hills area before the 2^nd respondent-District Collector, Kozhikode and to this respondent. These complaints were forwarded to Sub Regional Transport Office, Ramanattukara for immediate enquiry. The said Motor Vehicle Inspector of Ramanattukara enquired the matter in detail. It was reported that it is difficult to find out the buses through the Kottakkunnu area because of the trip (via) not mentioned in their time sheet. After the vehicle inspection, the Motor Vehicle Inspector reported that two cases were filed against two buses on this route violating the permit conditions.

¶42

It is submitted that another direction has been given to the

¶43

W.P.(C) No. 25795/2023

¶44

: 4 :

¶45

Motor Vehicle Inspector to list out the buses which conducted service through that area and submission of the proposed time sheet also. In the Report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Sub Regional Transport Office, Ramanattukara, it is revealed that at present a total number of 29 Stage carriage buses were plying thorugh Kottakunnu and out of which 19 Stage carriage permits are granted by Regional Transport Authority, Kozhikode and the remaining 10 Stage carriage permits granted from Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram. On perusal of the Report, it is seen that a few months ago the Kottakadavu Road was closed for road constructions. After that, the most of the buses are plying through the new Bye pass. A variation of permit for S/C KL 11 BC 4599 through Kottadadavu to Prabhodhiri via TMH Hospital and curtailment from Kottakadavu to Prabhodini via Kottakadavu was granted by the meeting of Regional Transport Authority held on 11.04.2023. For this variation of permit, no objection were received in the said meeting.

¶46

The enquiry officer reported that new portion originated in between Kottakkadavu and Prabodhini (via) TMH Hospital via ByePass is 1.2 km and curtailment resulted due to the proposed deviation is also 1.2 km. Hence there is no difference in route length and running time. In the new portion originated there is no virgin portion and there is no notified sector and has recommended the variation. There is no objection received also. Hence variation of permit is granted, subject to the settlement of timings.

¶47

It is respectfully submitted that the Motor Vehicle Inspector reported that after compliance of strict vehicle inspection and observation through this route, now the stage carriage are conucting 50% trips through Kottakunnu-Yalvari Hills road. If trip curtailment continuous, again legal action will be taken to the buses those who

¶48

W.P.(C) No. 25795/2023 : 5 :

¶49

are violating the Rules and Permits.”

¶50

On a perusal of the above, it is clear that the authorities have undertaken that strict inspection shall be conducted to ensure that the stage carriages having permit through the aforesaid route, are conducting 50% trips through Kottakunnu-Kalvari Hills road and if any such stage carriage operators violates the conditions of permit or does not operate 50% trips through the said route, legal action would be taken against them.

¶51

In view of the above, nothing remains to be adjudicated in this writ petition and the grievance of the petitioners is fully redressed. However, the authorities are directed to continue to ensure that the stage carriages operating on the said route conducts 50% of trips through Kalvari Hills.

¶52

With the above observations, the present writ petition stands finally disposed of.

¶53

sd/- DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDGE.

¶54

¶55

W.P.(C) No. 25795/2023 : 6 :

¶56

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25795/2023

¶57

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:

¶58

Exhibit P 1	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03.12.2005 ISSUED BY THEN MEMBER OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
Exhibit P 2	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.03.2006 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P 3	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05.07.2023 SENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit p 4	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE KOTTAKKUMU - KALVARI HILLS ROAD TRANSPORTATION PROTECTION SAMITHI BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENTDATED 21/7/2023
Exhibit P 5	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE KOTTAKKUNNU - KALVARI HILLS ROAD TRANSPORTATION PROTECTION SAMITHI BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 21/7/2023

¶59

RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS: NIL

¶60

True Copy

¶61

PS To Judge.

¶62

Harun P, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harun P, v. State of Kerala

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

Varghese M.D., Vs Union of India

Chandrashekharan Nair Vs the District Collector

Shobhana P.R. Vs Union of India

Glaze , Vs State Tax Officer

Adoration Sisters of St. Jerome- Mariyapuram, Vs State of Kerala

Anishia Chandrakanth, Vs the State Tax Officer