Dismissed

Bins K.B. v. the State Transport Appellate Tribunal

Kerala HC18 Jul 2024OP(C)/2445/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Article 227 challenged a State Transport Appellate Tribunal order. Following Valsaraj v. Rajan, the court held the Tribunal acts as persona designata, so Article 227 does not lie; such orders must be challenged under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as not maintainable with liberty to work out remedies as per law; interim stay vacated.

Bins K.B. Vs the State Transport Appellate… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 27TH ASHADHA, 1946

¶5

OP(C) NO. 2445 OF 2017

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN MVARP NO.125 OF 2014 OF
S.T.A.TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

BINS K.B.
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O BALAKRISHNA PILLA,
KAVUMPURATH HOUSE,
PURAPUZHA P.O., THODUPUZHA.
BY ADVS.
SRI.I.DINESH MENON
O.D.SIVADAS

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM-682011.

¶11

2 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY IDUKKI-685603.

¶12

3THE SECRETARY
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
IDUKKI-685603.
4SMT. ANEES JOHN
NEEROLICKAL HOUSE,
PURAPUZHA P.O., THODUPUZHA.
BY ADVS.
P.DEEPAK
RILGIN V.GEORGE
NAZRIN BANU(K/1317/2020)
SRI. M P PRASANTH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.07.2024, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

OP(C) NO. 2445 OF 2017

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Dated this the 18^th day of July, 2024

¶19

This Original Petition Civil has been filed under Article

¶20

227 of the Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P1 order in MVARP No.125/2014 dated 31.07.2017 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶22

The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that this original petition, challenging Ext.P1 order, is not maintainable and he has placed a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Valsaraj v. Rajan reported in 2019 SCC Online Ker 2657. In the said case, this Court considered the maintainability of a petition filed under Article

¶23

227 of the Constitution of India and after analysing the decisions in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Nandini

¶24

J. Shah [AIR 2018 SC 1197] Thakur Das (Dead) by LRs v.

¶25

¶26

OP(C) NO. 2445 OF 2017

¶27

State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. [(1978) 1 SCC 27] (Three Bench), Asnew Drums Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Maharashtra State Financial Corporation & Ors. [(1971) 3 SCC 602], Maharashtra State Financial Corporation v. Jaycee Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. & Ors [(1991 (2) SCC 637], Ramcahndra Aggarwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1966 Supp.SCR 393], Mukri Gopalan v. Cheppilat Puthanpurayil Aboobacker [(1995) 5 SCC 5], this Court concluded that a Judicial Officer exercising the powers of State Transport Appellate Tribunal, acts as a persona designata , and not in his capacity as a pre-existing Judicial authority in the district, he being a District Judge. Therefore, the judgment/order passed by State Transport Appellate Tribunal is not a judgment/order passed by a civil court against which the remedy under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be invoked. It is further held that such judgment/order can be challenged in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶28

OP(C) NO. 2445 OF 2017

¶29

¶30

Since the legal position is made clear in Valsaraj’s case (supra), this Original Petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, this Original Petition (Civil) is dismissed as not maintainable with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedies as per law.

¶31

The interim order of stay stands vacated.

¶32

Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment

¶33

to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam for information and further steps.

¶34

Sd/A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE

¶35

nkr

¶36

¶37

OP(C) NO. 2445 OF 2017

¶38

APPENDIX OF OP(C) 2445/2017

¶39

`PETITIO`	`NER`	`EXHIBITS`
`EXHIBIT`	`P1`	`TRUE COPY` `NO.125/2014`	`OF THE` `DATED`	`JUDGMENT` `31.7.2017.`	`IN MVARP`
`EXHIBIT`	`P2`	`TRUE COPY` `PETITIONER'` `23.08.2012.`	`OF T` `S`	`HE TIMINGS` `SERVICE`	`OF THE` `DATED`
`EXHIBIT`	`P3`	`TRUE COPY` `NO.125/2014`	`OF THE` `DATED`	`MEMORANDUM` `23.7.2014.`	`IN MVARP`
`EXHIBIT`	`P4`	`TRUE COPY` `DATED 2.3.2`	`OF TH` `017.`	`E COUNTER`	`AFFIDAVIT`
`EXHIBIT`	`P5`	`TRUE COPY` `W.A.NO.2877`	`OF` `/2009.`	`THE JUDG`	`MENT IN`

¶40

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL

Bins K.B. v. the State Transport Appellate Tribunal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bins K.B. v. the State Transport Appellate Tribunal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Somu Vs State of Kerala

Xxxxxx Vs State of Kerala

Benny Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Jaris E.O. Vs State of Kerala

Komalavally Vs Syamala

Rashid Muhammed Kunju Vs State of Kerala