Dismissed

Jose Mathew, v. the Regional Transport Officer

Kerala HC21 Mar 2023WP(C)/5860/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition filed by bus operators challenging time hearing allocations. The court noted that the relevant order was challenged before the Transport Tribunal, which was still pending. Consequently, it directed the petitioners to approach the Tribunal for appropriate orders before any decision on the petitioners' request.

What the court decided

AI extract

Jose Mathew, Vs the Regional Transport Officer — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFKERALAATERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVANV
TUESDAY,THE21STDAYOFMARCH2023/30THPHALGUNA,1944
WP(C)NO.5860OF2023

¶4

PETITIONERS:

¶5

1JOSEMATHEW
AGED60YEARS
S/OMATHEW,PARAKKULANGARAHOUSE,ERUMELYSOUTH,
ERUMELY,KOTTAYAM.

¶6

2SHIBUK.S
AGED56YEARS
S/OSCARIA,KANIYAMPARAMBILHOUSE,VENKURINJI.P.O,
KANJIRAPPALLY,KOTTAYAMDISTRICT,PIN-686510.

¶7

BYADVS.
C.A.NAVAS
P.A.SHAJISAMAD
LAYASIMON

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1THEREGIONALTRANSPORTOFFICER
ROADTRANSPORTOFFICE,KOTTAYAM,KOTTAYAMDISTRICT,
PIN-686002.

¶10

2THEREGIONALTRANSPORTOFFICER
ROADTRANSPORTOFFICE,PAINAVU,IDUKKI,
IDUKKIDISTRICT,PIN-686002.

¶11

3SUNNYMATHEW
CHITTAPPANATTUHOUSE,MUNDAKKAYAM.P.O,
KOTTAYAMDISTRICT.,PIN-686513.

¶12

SRI.K.V.GOPINATHANNAIR

¶13

SMT.DEEPAV,GP

¶14

THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON
21.03.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C)NO.5860OF2023

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-

¶19

(i) To call for the records leading to Exhibit P1 to P9 and to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Direction or order declaring that the 3rd respondent is not entitled to get any fresh permit pursuant to Exhibit P7 proceedings and any final order granting such permits will amount to hostile violation of Exhibit P2, Exhibit P4 and Exhibit P6 judgments of this Honourable Court.

¶20

(ii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Direction or order directing the 1st respondent to keep all further proceedings with respect to Time hearing of the 3rd respondent scheduled on 21.02.2023 in abeyance till a final decision is taken by the 2nd respondent with respect to the Time Revision Petition scheduled on 21.02.2023 of the 1st petitioner as per the directions contained in Exhibit P2 & P4 judgments of this Honourable Court.

¶21

(iii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Direction or order directing the 1st respondent to keep all further proceedings with respect to Time hearing of the 3rd respondent scheduled on 21.02.2023 in abeyance till a final decision is taken by the 2nd respondent in consideration of the Time Revision Petition in accordance with seniority with respect to the judgment rendered in favour of the 2nd petitioner, as per directions contained in Exhibit P6 judgment of this Honourable Court

¶22

(iv) To issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Direction or order directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exhibit P8 & P9 representations, forth with, after affording an opportunity to the petitioners and other interested operators of being heard.

¶23

When this matter came up for consideration on 28.02.2023,

¶24

this Court passed the following order:-

¶25

“The learned counsel appearing petitioners points out that pursuant to orders issued by this court on 20.2.2023, directions have been issued to the 2nd respondent to consider Exts.P8 and P9 in W.P.(C) No.5860 of 2023. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent has posted the matter to 2.03.2023.

¶26

WP(C)NO.5860OF2023

¶27

¶28

In the meantime, the 1st respondent has posted the request of the 3rd respondent to settle timings on 1.2.2023. The learned counsel requested that the 1st respondent be directed to take up the matter after orders are passed in terms of the directions issued by this Court on or after 2.3.2023. It is submitted that serious injustice would be caused if timings are settled by the 1st respondent in the application.

¶29

Recording the submissions advanced, the 1st respondent is directed to adjourn the matter for settlement of timings of the 3rd respondent on any day after 2.3.2023.”

¶30

It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that in

¶31

terms of the directions issued by this Court, the 1st respondent had adjourned the matter for settlement of timing of the 3rd respondent on a day after 02.03.2023. It is submitted that the request made by the petitioners herein before the Secretary, RTA, was considered, and order was passed on 02.03.2023 as is evident from Ext.P11 order. It is submitted

¶32

that the said order has been challenged by the 3rd respondent before the Tribunal, and the same is pending.

¶33

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits

¶34

that the petitioners be permitted to operate the bus service as per Ext.P11 revised time allotted pursuant to Exts.P2 and P4 judgments.

¶35

In response, Sri. K. V. Gopinathan Nair, the learned counsel,

¶36

submits that since Ext.P11 has been challenged before the Tribunal, this Court would not be justified in directing the 2nd respondent to permit the

¶37

WP(C)NO.5860OF2023

¶38

¶39

petitioners to operate the service as per Ext.P11.

¶40

Since the matter is pending before the Tribunal, I am of

¶41

the view the writ petitioners can be directed to approach the Tribunal and get appropriate orders.

¶42

Reserving the right of the petitioners to approach the Tribunal and seek appropriate orders, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE

¶45

Sru

¶46

WP(C)NO.5860OF2023

¶47

¶48

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5860/2023

¶49

PETITIONER’SEXHIBITS

¶50

`Exhibit P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT NO. KL66/805/2015` `DATED 29.09.2020 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.`
`Exhibit P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 12.06.2018` `IN WP(C) NO.19238/2018 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH` `COURT OF KERALA.`
`Exhibit P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF TIME` `REVISION ENQUIRY REPORT ALONG WITH COVERING` `LETTER DATED 14.02.2023 ISSUED BY THE SUB` `REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, VANDIPERIYAR.`
`Exhibit P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 31.01.2023` `IN WP(C) NO.2305/2023 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH` `COURT OF KERALA.`
`Exhibit P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT NO. KL2022-TEMP-4130C` `DATED 27.12.2022 OF THE 2ND PETITIONER.`
`Exhibit P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 09.12.2022` `IN WP(C) NO.39858/2022 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH` `COURT OF KERALA.`
`Exhibit P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.JI/12713/2022/K` `DATED 29.11.2022 ISSUED BY REGIONAL` `TRANSPORT, AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM.`
`Exhibit P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED NIL` `FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.`
`Exhibit P9`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED` `20.02.2023 FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.`
`Exhibit P10`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED NIL` `ALONG WITH TIME SHEETS OF THE EXISTING` `AFFECTED OPERATORS.`
`Exhibit P11`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.J3/72/2023/ID DATED` `02.03.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT` `REVISING THE TIME OF WRIT PETITIONER.`

¶51

WP(C)NO.5860OF2023

¶52

¶53

ExhibitP12TRUECOPYOFTHEINTERIMORDERDATED
06.03.2023INWP(C)NO.7465/2023OFTHIS
HONOURABLECOURT.
ExhibitP13TRUECOPYOFTHEORDERDATED20.02.2023IN
M.PNO.346/2023INM.V.A.R.PNO.33/2023OF
THESTATETRANSPORTAPPELLATETRIBUNAL,
ERNAKULAM.
ExhibitP14TRUECOPYOFTHEORDERDATED06.03.2023IN
M.PNO.486/2023INM.V.A.R.PNO.42/2023OF
THESTATETRANSPORTAPPELLATETRIBUNAL,
ERNAKULAM.
ExhibitP15THETRUECOPYOFTHEPROCEEDINGS
NO.J1/12713/2022/KDATED07.03.2022ISSUEDTO
THE3RDRESPONDENT.
ExhibitP16THETRUECOPYOFTHEPROCEEDINGSNO
J3/1143/2023/IDDATED07.03.2023ISSUEDBY
THE2NDRESPONDENT.

Jose Mathew, v. the Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Jose Mathew, v. the Regional Transport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sajan Philip Vs State of Kerala

K.v.George Alias George Varghese Vs Sub Regional Transport Officer/Taxation Officer

Sajitha Beevi Vs Regional Passport Officer

Kannur District Petroleum Dealers Association Vs the State of Kerala

Soman.K.N Vs the Secretary

Safia P.K. Vs Consulate General of India, Dubai