Rajeevan C vs The Regional Transport Officer

Kerala High Court

Rajeevan C vs The Regional Transport Officer on 12 April, 2024

Author: N.Nagaresh

Bench: N.Nagaresh

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                          PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
  FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1946
                  WP(C) NO. 15555 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:

    1    RAJEEVAN C, AGED 49 YEARS
         S/O CHATHU, CHARDRALAYATHIL HOUSE,
         KUNINGAD P.O, VATAKARA, PIN - 673503
    2    UMESH C.K, AGED 46 YEARS
         S/O GANDADHARAN NAIR, CHETTIYAMKANDIL,
         PONMERI PARAMBIL P.O, VATAKARA, PIN - 673542
    3    JIJU KUMAR, AGED 54 YEARS
         S/O KRISHNAN MASTER, EDAVALATH, MANIYOOR,
         KOTTAVADI P.O, VATAKARA., PIN - 636115
    4    ARUN K.K, AGED 35 YEARS
         S/O KARUNAKARAN, KURUMBERI HOUSE,
         KUNINGAD P.O, VATAKARA, PIN - 673503

         BY ADV K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR


RESPONDENTS:

    1    THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
         AGED 35 YEARS (SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT
         AUTHORITY) VATAKARA , VATAKARA -, PIN - 673104
    2    STATION HOUSE OFFICER,CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
         VATAKARA, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, PUTHIYAPPU,
         VADAKARA ·, PIN - 673101

         SMT.REKHA C. NAIR, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION     (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP       FOR
ADMISSION ON 12.04.2024,    THE COURT ON THE SAME        DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.15555 of 2024
                               2




                          JUDGMENT

Dated this the 12th day of April, 2024 The petitioners, who are Stage Carriage Operators on the route Kadamerry-Thaneerpanthal-Vatakara-Thalassery, are aggrieved by the parallel services run by the unauthorised jeeps and autorickshaws. The petitioners have filed Exts.P2 and P3 complaints in this regard before the respondents.

2. The petitioners would contend that running of such parallel services are illegal and violating Rule 207 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. According to the petitioners, there is total failure on the part of the respondents in performing their statutory duties.

3. Heard.

4. Taking into consideration the averments made by the petitioners, if the allegations contained in Exts.P2 and P3 are true, then action is warranted from the part of the respondents.

3

In the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent-Regional Transport Officer to consider Ext.P2 representation submitted by the petitioners and take appropriate action as is warranted, in accordance with law.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE spk WP(C) No.15555 of 2024 4 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15555/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PRIVATE BUS OPERATORS ASSOCIATION BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 11.10.2023 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1 ST RESPONDENT DATED 16.12.2023 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.12.2023 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT REGARDING THE RECEIPT OF COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.12.2023