Dismissed

O.A. Abbaskhan, v. the Regional Transport Authority

Kerala HC24 Mar 2023WP(C)/5787/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the RTA's order granting a stage carriage permit variation to a third party and a timing conference notice. The court distinguished prior precedent and dismissed the writ petition, finding no reason to interfere as the administrative authority considered relevant facts including route sketches and traffic scarcity. Order dismissed.

What did the court decide?

null

O.A. Abbaskhan, Vs the Regional Transport Authority — Specific Performance | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVANV
FRIDAY,THE24THDAYOFMARCH2023/3RDCHAITHRA,1945
WP(C)NO.5787OF2023

¶3

PETITIONER/S:

¶4

O.A.ABBASKHAN,
AGED51YEARS,S/OABDULLATHEEF,
ORAYATHILHOUSE,KANJIRAPPALLYP.O.,
KOTTAYAM,PIN-686507
BYADVM.JITHESHMENON

¶5

RESPONDENT/S:

¶6

1THEREGIONALTRANSPORTAUTHORITY,
KOTTAYAM,REGIONALTRANSPORTOFFICE,
CIVILSTATIONP.O.,KOTTAYAM-686002,
REPRESENTEDBYITSSECRETARY.
2THESECRETARY
REGIONALTRANSPORTAUTHORITY,KOTTAYAM,
REGIONALTRANSPORTOFFICE,CIVILSTATIONP.O.,
KOTTAYAM.,PIN-686002
3THOMASV.PHILIP
VAVOLICKALHOUSE,PULICKALKAVALA,
KOTTAYAM,PIN-686515
BYADVK.V.GOPINATHANNAIR
SMTMABLECKURIAN,SR.GP

¶7

THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFOR
ADMISSIONON24.03.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAY
DELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING:

¶8

W.P.(C) No.5787 of 2023

¶9

¶10

JUDGMENT

¶11

The petitioner herein is an existing stage carriage operator operating on the route Chengamkunnu-Thekoy with stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-34/C-7767. It appears that the 3rd respondent is holding a regular permit on the route Manimala-Kanjirappally via - Chengamkunnu Thekoy. As there was no service through Karimpumkayam, the public residing in that area submitted certain representations before the authorities requesting the operation of service during the sector. The 3rd respondent had also submitted an application for variation of permit to provide five trips through the sector. An enquiry was conducted through the field officer, and the report was submitted reporting that the variation of permit sought for by the 3rd respondent was a long-felt need and it is in accordance with the public requirements.

¶12

The petitioner states that he had appeared before the RTO and had raised his objections. According to the petitioner, without properly considering the objections raised by the petitioner and without adverting to any relevant facts, the RTA, placing reliance on the report of

¶13

W.P.(C) No.5787 of 2023

¶14

¶15

the field officer, has passed Ext.P1 decision.

¶16

The contention of the petitioner is that Ext.P1 decision of the RTA is against all tenets of law. According to the petitioner, the variation, as sought by the 3rd respondent, could not have been granted as a matter of right. It is also stated that while taking Ext.P1 decision, the RTA has not stated why the valid objection raised by the petitioner was ignored. It is on these assertions that this writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P1 decision of the RTA granting variation of the permit as well as Ext.P3 notice of timing conference scheduled on 22.02.2023.

¶17

A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent. After reiterating the facts, it is contended that the 1st respondent had considered the matter in its meeting held on 29.11.2022, and the order was passed taking note of all the relevant facts. According to the respondent, no valid objection was raised from any side, including the petitioner herein. It is further stated that while taking Ext.P1 decision, the report of the route enquiry officer that the curtailed portion is served by other stage carriages and that there is no scarcity of transportation was

¶18

W.P.(C) No.5787 of 2023

¶19

¶20

taken note of. The RTA had also taken note of the fact that through the varied portion of about 3.1 Km., there are no stage carriages as of now.

¶21

I have heard Sri. M. Jithesh Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Gopinathan Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent and Smt. Mable C. Kurian, the learned Senior Government Pleader.

¶22

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated the contentions and also refer to the law laid down in Prasad V. RTA,

¶23

Ernakulam [2005 KHC 564].

¶24

Sri. Gopinathan Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent, vehemently opposed the contentions and submitted that the entire aspects of the matter were considered by the RTA while taking a decision.

¶25

Having considered the submissions advanced, I find that though

¶26

various contentions are raised by the petitioner in the writ petition with

¶27

regard to the nature of objections filed by him, the objection filed before the RTA is not placed before this Court. I also find that the principle which

¶28

W.P.(C) No.5787 of 2023

¶29

¶30

is relied on by the petitioner and is stated by this Court in Ext.P2 judgment cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of the case. In the said judgment, the learned Single Judge took note of the fact that the order passed by the officer is cryptic. In the instance case, the entire aspects were considered by the officer while issuing Ext.P1. The respondents have also placed on record Ext.R3(a) sketch of the route. The RTA took note of the fact that the permit holder intends to curtail the existing route from Chenappadi-Alinchuvadu Junction to Kallarakkavu Junction through Chenappadi Town, Kadavanalkadavu Bridge and Paruthumala. The fact that there is no scarcity of transportation along the curtailed route and there are no stage carriages through the varied portion was also taken note of by the RTA.

¶31

In that view of the matter, I find no reason to interfere with Ext.P1 order. This writ petition will stand dismissed.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE

¶34

¶35

W.P.(C) No.5787 of 2023

¶36

¶37

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5787/2023

¶38

PETITIONEREXHIBITS

¶39

ExhibitP1ATRUECOPYOFTHEDECISIONOFTHERTA,
KOTTAYAMDATED29.11.2022INITEMNO.26.
ExhibitP2ATRUECOPYOFTHEDICTUMLAIDDOWNINPRASAD
VSRTA,ERNAKULAM,2005KHC564[2005[2]KLT
227].
ExhibitP3ATRUECOPYOFTHENOTICEFORTIMING
CONFERENCEDATED15.02.2023.
ExhibitP4TRUECOPYOFTHECASESTATUSOBTAINEDFROM
THECOURTSITESHOWINGTHATINTERIMORDERWAS
GRANTEDINWP[C]NO.5651/2021.
RESPONDENTEXHIBITS
EXT.R3(a)TRUECOPYOFTHEROUGHSKETCHOFTHEROUTE
EXT.R3(b)TRUECOPYOFTHEREPRESENTATIONSUBMITTEDBY
THEMEMBEROFKANJIRAPPALLYGRAMAPANCHAYATH
DATED9.12.2022

O.A. Abbaskhan, v. the Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

O.A. Abbaskhan, 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sharukh Sharaf Vs Central Board of Secondary Education

The Federal Bank Ltd. Vs Federal Bank Employees Union

Rajan v T, Vs State of Kerala

P a Shajahan Vs Transport Commissioner

Smt. Ponnamma Devasia Vs the District Collector

Devaki.K.v Vs the Secretary