Private Bus & Transport Association v. District Polie Chief

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2015/25TH ASHADHA, 1937 WP(C)No. 21660 of 2014(F) PETITIONERS:

1.

PRIVATE BUS & TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY REJI P.J. PUTTANI HOUSE, MANNAMANGALAM, THRISSUR-14.

2.

V.G.BIJU, VAIKKATTIL HOUSE, P.O.PUTHOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR RESPONDENTS:

1.

DISTRICT POLIE CHIEF, THRISSUR, PIN-680 001.

2.

THE CHAIRMAN, TRAFFIC REGULATORY COMMITTEE, THRISSUR, PIN-680 001.

3.

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN-680 001.

BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI.S.JAMAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.07.2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No.21660/2014(F) APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH OF THE AREA. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER DTD.1.7.2014. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD.7.6.2014.

EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND RESEARCH CENTRE SUBMITTED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD.12.8.2014.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

Nil //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE PtK/

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

--------------------------------------- W.P(C). No.21660 of 2014 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of July, 2015.

JUDGMENT

The petitioners seek enforcement of Ext.P4, which is a report said to be issued by the National Transportation Planning and Research Centre in regulation of the road traffic system. It is alleged that, due to objections raised by certain residents of the locality, the 2nd respondent is not implementing the same in the area in which the 2nd respondent has its jurisdiction. None of the objectors are impleaded herein. The petitioner does not seem to have even approached the 2nd respondent for implementation of the same.

In the said circumstance, no mandamus will issue. The writ petition would stand dismissed. No costs.

Sd/- K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE sp