Ibrahim Adam vs The Regional Transport Authority
2021 Latest Caselaw 19898 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
    THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 1ST ASWINA, 1943
                        WP(C) NO. 15440 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

          IBRAHIM ADAM,
          S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, KOTTUVAYAL HOUSE,
          NALLUR, FEROKE P.O. KOZHIKODE.

          BY ADVS.


          O.D.SIVADAS
          P.ASHA


RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
          CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE 673 020.

    2     THE SECRETARY,
          REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
          CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE 673 020.

    3     FAHADALI,
          S/O. IBRAHEEMKUTTI, 7/251 A, KANNANGARI,
          KOLATHARA P.O. CHERUVANNUR, NALLALAM,
          KOZHIKODE 673 655.

    4     THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
          KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

          BY ADVS.


          SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR
          SRI.P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM), SC
          SRI. HANIL KUMAR - SPL.GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 15440 OF 2021
                                 2

                            JUDGMENT

The petitioner is stated to be a stage carriage operator

conducting service along the route - Puttaykkad-Feroke-

Muthottam-Payyankkkal-Chakkukkadavu. He says that the 3 rd

respondent is also an existing operator on the route Pullikkadavu-

Mathottam and that he has now applied for variation of his permit.

The petitioner says that he has specific objections with respect to

the variation sought for by the 3rd respondent and that he has

therefore, preferred Ext.P3 objections before the 1 st respondent -

Regional Transport Authority (RTA).

2. The petitioner alleges that the RTA is now proposing

to dispose of his objections through "circulation," which he says

is illegal and unlawful, particularly, when the objections raised are

valid and tenable. The petitioner therefore, seeks that the 1 st

respondent RTA be directed to consider Ext.P3 objections

submitted by him, after affording him necessary opportunity to

substantiate the same.

3. In response, the learned Special Government Pleader, WP(C) NO. 15440 OF 2021

Sri.Hanil Kumar, submitted that the 1st respondent - RTA has not

received merely the objections of the petitioner but also from two

other operators and that necessary action thereon will be taken

before the request of the 3rd respondent is finally decided upon.

He prayed that, therefore, this Court may allow the 1 st respondent

- RTA to take up all the objections and then decide on the

application of the 3rd respondent for variation, in terms of law.

4. Smt.G.Chithra, learned counsel appearing for the 3 rd

respondent submitted that her client had earlier approached this

Court to obtain Ext.P2 judgment; whereby directions were given

to the competent authority to consider his application for

extension of his service to Chakkumkadavu, which is 5.5 km from

Mathottam. She submitted that this Court has also allowed the 1 st

respondent to take a decision thereon through circulation. She

therefore, prays that the said Authority may be allowed to

consider the objections of the petitioner also through such

manner.

WP(C) NO. 15440 OF 2021

5. When I consider the afore submissions, it is obvious

that this Court need not speak affirmatively whether the

objections are to be considered by the RTA in a particular manner

or the other. The statutory scheme certainly provides the modus

in which such objections are to be considered; and it would be

unnecessary for this Court to direct that it should be done directly

or through circulation, since the applicable statutory provisions

specify in what circumstances the 1st respondent can take recourse

to either of such courses.

In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition,

recording the submissions of the learned Special Government

Pleader as afore; with a consequential direction to the 1st

respondent to consider Ext.P3 objections of the petitioner, as also

those made by any other, with respect to the application of the 3rd

respondent for variation of his permit, which shall then be

concluded - after affording all the parties, as also the competent

authority of the 4th respondent - KSRTC an opportunity of being WP(C) NO. 15440 OF 2021

heard; thus culminating in an appropriate order thereon as

expeditiously as is possible, but not later than six weeks from the

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

This writ petition is thus ordered.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE scs WP(C) NO. 15440 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15440/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 THE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF PERMIT SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 15.1.2021.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT 11.05.2201 TENDERED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO. 10416 OF 2021.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 8.07.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT.