IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1933 WA.No. 1754 of 2011() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.909/2011 Dated 03/11/2011 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONERS. -------------------------------------------- 1. K.RASHEED,S/O.HASSAN,AGED 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT KANDANAKATH HOUSE,KALADI.P.O, KANDANAGAM,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679582. 2. V.K.JYOTHI KUMAR,KONDODE HOUSE, KALADU.P.O,KANDANAGAM,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679582. BY ADV. SRI.V.JOHN MANI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------ 1. THE SECRETARY,KALADI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. KERALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,MALAPPURAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001. 5. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, MALAPPURAM. 6. MUHAMMED.C,CHANGAMPILLY,POST KALADY- 679582,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 7. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,MALAPPURAM-676507. R3, R4, R5 AND R7 BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.JAMES MATHEW KADAVAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag.C.J & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No. 1754 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon, J. The appellant/petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P (C).No. 909 of 2011 dated 3.11.2011 with the following prayers: i. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to consider and duly advert to Exts.P1 to P3 before passing any orders on the question of shifting the existing bus stop at Kandanagam situated on the side of Kuttipuram- Edappal-Chungam Route within a time frame to be fixed by this honourable court. ii. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to provide the petitioners with an effective opportunity of being heard before passing any orders on the question of WA.1754/11 2 shifting the bus stop at Kandanagam, situated on the side of Kuttipuram- Edappal-Chungam Route. iii.To issue such other writs or pass such orders as this hon'ble court deems fit in the interests of justice. iv.To call for records leading to Ext.P4 deciding and to quash the same by issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari.” 2. A statement was filed before this Court stating the actual facts and figures with regard to the issue involved, which actually involved shifting of a bus stop by a few meters. It was brought to the notice of the Court that the bus stop at the exiting place was having a 'steep curve' and as such, was causing much inconvenience to the traffic and the general public. Pointing out the safety aspects, some representations also came to be filed before the concerned authorities. The case of the appellant/petitioner was that he objected to the shifting of the bus stop and though representations were preferred before the authorities of the Transport Department, without any regard to the same, steps were pursued to have the bus stop shifted to the new place, which made him to approach this Court by filing the Writ Petition. WA.1754/11 3 3. After considering the materials on record, the learned Single Judge observed that the issue was actually got enquired into by the department through the Motor Vehicles Inspector, who inspected the site and made a report as to the existence of the curve and as to the inconvenience being caused to the general public, including the safety aspects. It was after taking note of the report, that the RTA took the decision vide Exhibit P4, to have the bus stop shifted to the place in question. It was also brought on record that the autorikshaw stand, which was also situated at the same place was caused to be changed to elsewhere, in view of the sharp curve at the location to mitigate the grievance with regard to the inconvenience caused to the general public. It was in the said circumstances, that interference was declined and the Writ Petition was dismissed. We find no ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Therefore, interference is declined and the Writ Appeal is dismissed. MANJULA CHELLUR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE vgs