High Court of KeralaWP(C)/18517/2014disposed of

Sahadevan v. The Regional Transport Authority

2015-01-06Honourable Mr. Justice Dama Seshadri Naidu5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/16TH POUSHA, 19361 WP(C).No. 18517 of 2014 (L) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

-------------- SAHADEVAN AGED 67 YEARS S/O. SREEDHARAN, RESIDING AT SREEDHAR BHAVAN PARIPPALLY P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.A.R.NIMOD SRI.SANIL JOSE RESPONDENT(S):

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

1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY KOLLAM-691 001.

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM-691 001.

3. KALLUVATHUKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KALLUVATHUKKAL P.O. KOLLAM-691 578.

4. KALLUVATHUKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KALLUVATHUKKAL P.O. KOLLAM-691 578.

5. AJAY KUMAR M.

SECRETARY, AUTOMOBILE UNION (CITU), NEERITHI PARIPPALLY, KOLLAM-691 578.

6. VINOD PARIPALLY SECRETARY, AUTOMOBILE UNION (INTUC), CONGRESS BHAVAN PARIPPALLY, KOLLAM-691 578.

7. STALIN SECRETARY, AUTO RICKSHAW WORKERS UNION (AITUC) PARIPPALLY, KOLLAM-691 578.

R4 BY ADV. SRI.G.BHAGAVAT SINGH R5-R6 BY ADV. SRI.S.BIJU (KIZHAKKANELA) BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.G.GOPAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 18517 of 2014 (L) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------ P1 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD.12.6.2014.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL ------------------------ //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

========================= ============================ Dated this the 06th day of January, 2015

JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, as well as the learned counsel for the respondents, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself.

2. Briefly stated that the petitioner is said to be the owner of a shopping complex in the name and style of 'S.S.Complex'. His grievance is that the owners of autorickshaws plying in the area set up their own auto stand in front of the petitioner's shopping complex, thereby preventing ingress and egress to the complex.

3. The petitioner is said to have submitted Ext.P1 representation before the 1st respondent seeking the intervention of the said authority. Questioning the delay in the consideration of Ext.P1 by the 1st respondent, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

4. The learned Standing Counsel for 4th respondent Gramapanchayath and also the learned counsel for the respondents 5, 6 and 8 have together submitted that on earlier occasion some other person filed W.P(C) No.33060 of 2010 concerning the same issue, and that this Court disposed it of through a judgment, dated 03.02.2011, by issuing certain directions.

5. The learned counsel for the 5th, 6th and 8th respondents has also further submitted that, in the light of the directions given in W.P(C) No.33060 of 2010, the 4th respondent Gramapanchayath has already initiated certain steps. According to him, if the 1st respondent is to consider Ext.P1 representation said to have been submitted by the petitioner, he shall take into account the directions of this Court given earlier and also all the subsequent developments that took place in the light of the said judgment.

6. In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the

petitioner, the learned standing counsel for the 4th respondent Gramapanchayath and also learned counsel for the respondents 5, 6 and 8, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider petitioner's Ext.P1 representation, keeping in view the directions given by this Court earlier on 03.02.2011 in W.P(C) No.33060 of 2010, as well as the subsequent developments that are said to have taken place owing to the steps initiated by the 4th respondent Gramapanchayath, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within three months. It is made clear that if any of the parties seeks an opportunity of personal hearing, it may be considered by the 1st respondent.

Sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE vdv //True Copy// P.A to judge