High Court of KeralaWP(C)/10314/2010closed

The M.D., Ksrtc v. Rta And Others

2015-01-20Honourable Mr.Justice K.Vinod Chandran3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/30TH POUSHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 10314 of 2010 (L) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

----------------------- THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, SRI.RANJITH JOSEPH.

BY ADVS. SRI.P.C.CHACKO, SC RESPONDENT(S):

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

1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM.

2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM.

3. E.P.VINOJ, EDATTU HOUSE, VADAYAR, THALAYOLAPARAMBU, KOTTAYAM.

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.R.RANJITH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-01-2015, ALONG WITH WPC. 12659/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

msv/

WP(C).No. 10314 of 2010 (L) --------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

-------------------------------------- EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE RTA. EXT.P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD.2.4.2007. EXT.P3: A TRUE COPY OF KOTTAYAM NEENDOOR SCHEME. EXT.P4: A TRUE COPY OF DRAFT NOTIFICATION DATED 9.5.2006. EXT.P5: A TRUE COPY OF DRAFT PROPOSAL DATED 9.5.2007. EXT.P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE SAID DRAFT SCHEME WAS FINALIZED ON 24.7.2009 (PUBLISHED AS PER SRO NO.608 OF 2009).

EXT.P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RTA. EXT.P8: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT.

EXT.P9: A TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE RTA. EXT.P10: A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

----------------------------------------- NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S.TO JUDGE Msv/

K. Vinod Chandran, J ---------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).Nos.10314 of 2010-L &12659 of 2010-F ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of January, 2015

JUDGMENT

The petitioners in both the above writ petitions challenge the issuance of a regular permit in the route Kottayam - Ernakulam, for reason of Scheme violation.

2. The 3rd respondent in both the above writ petitions, whose permit is challenged, submits that he has surrendered the regular permit and is no more operating the same. In the light of the above, leaving open all the contentions of either parties, the writ petitions would stand closed. Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran, Judge vku/- ( true copy )