Kerala High Court
Santhosh V.P vs The Regional Transport Authority on 26 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 4TH BHADRA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 13816 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
SANTHOSH V.P, VIYYATH HOUSE, PORATHISSERY P.O.,
KARUVANNUR, THRISSUR PIN-680711.
BY ADV K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CIVIL STATION,
KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682030.
2 THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682030.
BY SR.GP SMT.SHEEJA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC 13816/21 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner impugns Exhibit P5 order of the Regional Transport
Authority (RTA), Ernakulam, on various grounds, but primarily asserting
that it runs contrary to the specific directions of the State Transport
Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal), Ernakulam in Exhibit P4.
2. The petitioner says that even though, in Exhibit P4, the Tribunal
has directed to grant variation as sought for by him, the RTA has rejected
it through Exhibit P5, virtually sitting in judgment over it. The petitioner,
therefore, prays that Exhibit P5 be set aside and the RTA be directed to
reconsider the matter implicitly in terms of Exhibit P4.
3. I have heard Sri.K.V.Gopinathan Nair, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Smt.C.S.Sheeja, learned Senior Government Pleader,
appearing for the respondents.
4. The learned Senior Government Pleader made submissions in
support of Exhibit P5 by saying that, as is stated therein, more than 43
kilometres would come within the ambit of 'curtailment' and therefore,
that the RTA had no other option but to reject the variation, as has been
sought for by the petitioner. She prayed that, therefore, this Court may not
interdict Exhibit P5 and dismiss this writ petition.
5. Even when I hear the learned Senior Government Pleader as
afore, I cannot find favour with Exhibit P5 for the singular reason that it
indubitably goes against the directions in Exhibit P4 order. The Tribunal,
for reasons recorded therein, had unambiguously declared that petitioner
is entitled to the variation sought for and therefore, unless the said order
has been set aside or modified in terms of law, the RTA could not have
rejected the claim of the petitioner, as has been done through Exhibit P5.
6. I am, therefore, of the firm view that Exhibit P5 cannot obtain
imprimatur in law and the matter will have to be reconsidered by the RTA
appropriately.
In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and set aside
Exhibit P5; with a consequential direction to the RTA to reconsider the
matter, adverting implicitly to Exhibit P4 and issue fresh orders thereon,
as expeditiously as possible, but not later than forty five days from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
At this time, the learned Senior Government Pleader requested
that liberty may also be reserved to the respondents to initiate and pursue
appropriate remedies against Exhibit P4 order. I certainly do not think that
it requires any specific orders from this Court, since the respondents are
at full liberty to invoke any remedy, as may be available to them in law.
Sd/-
Devan Ramachandran, Judge
tkv
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13816/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TIMINGS IN RESPECT OF THE
PETITIONER'S SERVICE.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL IN
M.V.A.A.NO.199/2018 DATED 22.9.2018.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN
M.V.A.R.P.NO.59/2019 DATED 7.6.2019.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
DATED 18.9.2019.
