IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 8383 of 2009(P)
1. V.SREEKUMAR,S/O.VISHWANATHA PILLAI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER,LEGISLATURE
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY,REGIONAL TRANSPORT
3. PRIVATE BUS OPERATOR'S FEDERATION,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.DEEPAK
For Respondent :SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC,ELE.COMMN.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :24/03/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C.) Nos.8383, 9216, 9335 & 9348 of 2009
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 24th day of March, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Since the issue raised in these writ petitions are common, I
refer to the pleadings in WP(C) No.8383/2009, to the extent it is
relevant.
2. The main grievance of the petitioners is regarding Ext.P5,
a communication issued by the Chief Electoral Officer, which reads
as under:-
“Please refer to the petition cited (copy enclosed) and to inform you
that RTA Board Meetings and the process of issue of permits as
alleged in therein may be deferred till the process of election is
over.”
The petitioners contend that after several rounds of litigations when
the permit was granted by Ext.P4 proceedings of the RTA, the issue
of the permit is prevented as a consequence of Ext.P5.
3. Taking into account the fact that in these cases, the grant
or issue of permit is consequent on the judgments rendered by the
STAT and this Court, it is now pointed out in the statement filed by
the 1st respondent, that they have issued Annexure A, a clarificatory
WP(C) Nos.8383, 9216, 9335 & 9348/2009
-2-
order, which reads as under:-
“Please refer this office letter of even number dated
06/03/2009 regarding Regional Transport Authority meetings and
issue of permits. In partial modification of the directions
contained therein, it is clarified that Regional Transport Authority
Board meetings can be conducted, but for issuance of new
permits, prior permission must be obtained from Chief Electoral
Officer clearly stating the need for such permits, case by case.
If the authorities entertain any doubt suo motto or
otherwise as to whether any application for issuance and renewal
of permits may be the effect of breach of the provisions of Model
Code of conduct, the same may also be referred to this office. If
any Court directions exist in respect of such application the same
may also specifically mentioned.”
From the last sentence of the clarificatory order referred to above, it
is clear that if the grant or issue of any permit is consequent on any
Court directions, the prohibition as imposed in Ext.P5 referred to
above, will not apply to such grant or issue as the case may be.
This position is also confirmed by the counsel for the 1st
respondent.
4. In these four cases, the grant or issue of permit is based
WP(C) Nos.8383, 9216, 9335 & 9348/2009
-3-
on the orders of the Tribunal or this Court and therefore, these are
cases, which are not covered by Ext.P5 as it stands excluded by
virtue of the last sentence in the clarificatory order.
5. Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of clarifying
that Ext.P5 communication referred to above, will not stand in the
way of the authority concerned in granting or issuing permit, as the
case may be.
6. Needless to say that the process consequent like will be
completed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four
weeks of production of a copy of this judgment.
These writ petitions are disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg