IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 37612 of 2009(V)
1. A. SUNIL, PRASANTHI ROAD,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
... Respondent
2. THE SECRTARY,
3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI. SAJEEV K. GOPAL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :23/12/2009
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W. P (C) No. 37612 of 2009
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 23rd December, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner holds an interstate permit for conducting
operation on the route Kottara-Madhur temple via Kasaragod and
Mangalore, which is valid up to 16-12-2012. The petitioner’s
grievance is that without taking any action to cancel the permit under
the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act, Exts.P3 and P4 check reports have
been served on the petitioner directing the petitioner to stop service
immediately. The petitioner submits that such action is violative of
the principles of natural justice, insofar as the petitioner has not
been given an opportunity of being heard before directing stoppage of
the service, which entails civil consequences to the petitioner. He
also submits that certain orders are referred to in Exts.P3 and P4,
copies of which have not been served on the petitioner. The petitioner
therefore seeks the following reliefs:
“i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs,
orders or directions quashing the originals of Exts.P3 and P4.
ii. Declare that issuance of Exts.P3 and P4 check reports by
the third respondent are without jurisdiction and there is no
enabling provision under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules
framed thereunder for the issuance of such check reports.
iii. Declare that the petitioner is entitled to operate his stage
carriage bearing Regn. No. K.A-19/C-1983 on the route Kottara-
Madhur temple via Kasaragod and Mangalore in the light of
Exts.P1 and P2 as long as Exts.P1 and P2 are valid and till the date
of expiry specified therein.”
2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also.
3. The learned Government Pleader would try to justify Exts.P.3
and P4 on the ground that the route in question is not a route notified
as per the interstate agreement between the State of Kerala and the
State of Karnataka and that is why the impugned action has been
W.P.C. No. 37612/09 -: 2 :-
initiated. This is disputed by the counsel for the petitioner.
4. Whatever that be, insofar as there is a current valid permit
in favour of the petitioner to conduct service in the particular route,
unless the same is cancelled by a process known to law, I do not think
that Exts.P3 and P4 orders can be issued directing stoppage of the
service immediately. On that ground, Exts.P3 and P4 are liable to be
quashed. But, in view of the order I propose to pass, it is not
necessary to quash Exts.P3 and P4 as such. In the above
circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the following
directions:
Exts.P1 and P4 shall be treated as show cause notices issued by
the 2nd respondent directing the petitioner to show cause why the
action contemplated in Exts.P3 and P4 shall not be taken against the
petitioner’s service. The petitioner shall file objections to the same
within two weeks. Thereupon, the 2nd respondent shall consider the
objections and pass an appealable order, which shall be served on the
petitioner. Till then, needless to say, the petitioner shall be allowed to
operate service.
S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/
[True copy]
P.S to Judge.