LAWS(KER)-2020-2-169

A.M.NOUSHAD Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

Decided On February 10, 2020
A.M.Noushad Appellant
V/S
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants, the writ petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 23658 of 2015, are aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge upholding Ext.P9 proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam held on 26.05.2015, whereby the authority has decided to remove the existing fare stage of such carriages at Manjummel Kavala by invoking the power conferred under Rule 211 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 ('Rules, 1989' for short), on public interest.

(2.) Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: Appellants are conducting stage carriage operation on the route Ernakulam-Guruvayur. The distance of the route is 86 kms and 34 fare stages have been fixed in the above route with an average of 2.5 kms evident from Ext.P5 list of approved fare and fare stages in respect of stage carriage vehicles on the route in question for Limited Stop Ordinary Services on and with effect from 11.11.2012. Stage No. 27 is SNDP (Varappuzha), stage No.28 is Manjummal Kavala and stage No.29 is Thaikavu. The Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam, while considering the representation of the third respondent, decided to remove the fare stage "Manjummel Kavala", which according to the appellants, was in an arbitrary and illegal manner. Thereupon, the appellants, inter alia contending that the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority was arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice, have approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 5482 of 2014 and as per Ext.P8 judgment the order impugned namely Ext.P7 was quashed and directed the Regional Transport Authority to re-consider the matter afresh, after providing notice of hearing to all interested parties. It was accordingly that the matter was reconsidered and Ext.P9 order was passed after hearing all parties concerned. The learned single Judge, after appreciating the contentions raised by the appellants, the Government as well as the passengers, who were respondents 3 and 4, and relying upon various judgments rendered by this Court, has arrived at a conclusion that the stand adopted by the Regional Transport Authority is in accordance with law and the appellants have not made out any case justifying interference exercising the discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, Smt. Chitra G, learned Senior Government Pleader Sri. Tek Chand and Smt. Sherry J Thomas, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4, and perused the pleadings and documents on record.