IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1279 of 2010()
1. SHEEJA THOMAS, THAKADIYAL PARAMBIL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT
For Petitioner :SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :28/07/2010
O R D E R
A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.A.No.1279 OF 2010
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 28th day of July 2010
JUDGMENT
Basheer, J.
Appellant is a stage carriage operator on the route Kottayam-
Kumarakom via Thazhathangadi.
2. According to the appellant, Thazhathangadi is an accident prone
area where several accidents have occurred in the recent past resulting in
heavy loss of life. It is the contention of the appellant that situation may
become worse, if the transport authorities issue more permits to new
operators on the said route. The case of the appellant is that even
variation of the existing permits on the said route may create havoc.
3. He highlighted all the above aspects in Ext.P1 request which he
submitted before the Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam.
Apparently, since no decision was taken on the said request, appellant filed
a writ petition under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the
following sole prayer:
“issue a writ of mandamus or any other writs, order or
direction directing the respondent Secretary, Regional
Transport Authority, Kottayam to take steps to consider
Ext.P1 request of the petitioner and not to grant further new
stage carriage permits or variation of permits on the portion
W.A.No.1279 OF 2010
:: 2 ::
between Kumarakom and Kottayam via Thazhathangadi as
the infrastructure of the road is unfit to carry more
vehicles.”
4. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that
the situation as projected by the appellant does not call for issue of any
direction as sought for by the appellant. The learned Judge took the view
that it cannot be assumed that the authorities concerned would not bestow
its attention to the issue highlighted by the appellant. It was further
noticed by the learned Judge that the appellant had no case that any
permit had been granted in violation of the existing law.
Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having
considered the contentions raised by the appellant, we do not find any
reason to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. We
are in respectful agreement with the observations made by the learned
Single Judge in the impugned judgment. The writ appeal fails and it is
accordingly dismissed.
A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE
P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE
jes