IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 10362 of 2010(U)
1. LENIN, AGED 31, S/O.SASI, UNION LEADER
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT
3. BINOJ, S/O.SREENIVASAN, KUDILIL HOUSE,
For Petitioner :SRI.B.RAMACHANDRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :26/03/2010
O R D E R
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J
...........................................
WP(C).NO. 10362 OF 2010
............................................
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the grant of
a contract carriage permit to the third respondent. Earlier, the third
respondent had applied for the grant of a permit for operating his
autorickshaw at Naluvazhy Junction, North Paravur. But, the same
was objected to by the second respondent on the ground that there was
no parking place at the said junction. The rejection of his application
was challenged by the third respondent before the STAT by filing an
appeal against the same. During the pendency of the appeal, second
respondent filed an affidavit expressing his willingness to operate the
service from the South Naluvazhy Junction, North Paravur. On the
basis of the affidavit, the appeal was disposed of directing the second
respondent to consider the request of the third respondent to operate his
autorickshaw from South Naluvazhy Junction. It is contended by the
petitioner that the second respondent has issued the permit to the third
respondent to operate his service from South Naluvazhy without
Wpc 10362/2010 2
conducting any proper enquiry. Therefore, he challenged the grant of
permit to the third respondent before the STAT in Ext.P2 revision
petition. However, the revision petition has been dismissed by the
STAT by Ext.P3 order. Ext.P3 is under challenge in this writ petition.
According to the counsel for the petitioner, though the petitioner has
been described as a union leader by the authorities, he is also an
autorickshaw driver who is plying his autorickshaw from the South
Naluvazhy Junction. Therefore, according to the petitioner, his rights
are also affected by the grant of a permit to the third respondent.
2. As rightly found by the STAT in Ext.P3, the petitioner being a
leader of the trade union, has no locus standi to challenge the grant of
permit to the third respondent. As a competing permit holder also, he
does not have a right to challenge the permit that has been granted to
the third respondent. I notice that in Ext.P3, the petitioner has described
himself as ` Union leader, C.I.T.U Autorickshaw Stand,
Thekkenaluvazhi, N.Parur, rep, by Lenin, S/o.Sasi, Union leader,
Ayyepadath(H), Nadyattukunnam, North Parur. This writ petition has
also been filed in the said capacity only. No material or evidence has
Wpc 10362/2010 3
been placed before me to warrant a conclusion that any prejudice has
been caused to the petitioner by the grant of an autorickshaw permit to
the third respondent. In view of the above, I do not find any ground to
interfere with the order of the STAT, evidenced herein by Ext.P3. The
writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE
lgk