Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Sheeja
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. 383 of 2014 (D) --------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.31/2014, DATED 01-01-2014 ------------------- REVIEW PETITIONER(S)(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, S.C RESPONDENT(S)/ PETITIONER & RESPONDENT :
------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1.
SHEEJA, W/O.BINU, KOMBIKKARA HOUSE, THODUPUZHA P.O- 685 684.
2.
THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, IDUKKI- 686 603.
R1 BY SRI.I.DINESH MENON R2 BY SR.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: Msd.
RP.No. 383 of 2014 (D) --------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :
ANNEXURE 1:
TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 08.01.2014 AS ITEM NO.124 OF THE RTA, IDUKKI.
ANNEXURE 2:
TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO.42/TRANS DATED 14.07.2009 RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :
NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE.
Msd.
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
========================= R.P No.383 of 2014 in W.P(C) No.31 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 Pathippally - Thodupuzha, which is said to have an objectionable overlap of 30 Kms between Thodupuzha and Moolamattam. The total route length is said to be 40 Kms of which 30Kms between Thodupuzha and Moolamattam is said to be comprised in Ernakulam - Kattappana and Kottayam - Kattappana 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. However, it is to be noticed that the temporary permit directed to be granted on 01.01.2014 was for a period
R.P No.383/2014 in W.P(C) No.31 of 2014 of four months and there was a stay issued as on 31.05.2014. 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 judgment. Though the period is over, review petition is 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