Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Abdul Sathar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/26TH POUSHA, 1936 RP.No. 253 of 2014 () -------------------------------- WP(C) 2341/2014 of THIS HONOURABLE COURT --------------------- REVIEW PETITIONER (3RD PARTY) :

------------------------------------------------ KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, REPRESENTED BY HIS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, P.SURESH KUMAR, CHIEF LAW OFFICER.

BY ADV. SRI.P.C.CHACKO, SC, KERALA STATE ROAD TR RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENT :

------------------------------------------------------------------

1. ABDUL SATHAR, PERAYIL HOUSE, THIRURKKAD P.O., ANGADIPPURAM, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT -679321.

2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY , MALAPPURAM - 676 505 R1 BY SRI. K.V.GOPINATHAN R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BIJU MEENATTOOR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

bp

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

========================= R.P No.253 of 2014 in W.P(C) No.2341 of 2014 ============================ Dated this the 16th day of January, 2015

ORDER

The above review petition is filed contending that the route in which the temporary permit has been directed to be issued, overlaps a notified scheme. The route, as indicated from the judgment, is Kadampuzha Temple - Perinthalmanna, which is said to have an objectionable overlap of 32 Kms between Vettichira and Perinthalmanna. The total route length is said to be 35 Kms of which 32Kms between Vettichira and Perinthalmanna is said to be comprised in Kozhikode Guruvayoor notified scheme route; by Notification No. 42/Trans dated 14.07.2009. In such circumstances, no temporary permit could have been issued in that route.

2. No appearance for 1st respondent despite service of notice.

R.P No.253/2014 in W.P(C) No.2341 of 2014

3. The period for which temporary permit was granted is already over and normally this Court would not have interfered with the same. However, there is a practise by which stage carriage operators seek for reissue of temporary permit and there can be no entitlement conferred on the operator, by reason of the instant judgment. The review petition stands allowed and the judgment would stand re-called and the writ petition would stand dismissed. No costs.

Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE vdv //True Copy// P.A to Judge