IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 28TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 25531 of 2006(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ THE ALL KERALA BUS OPERATORS ORGANIZATION BY THE GENERAL SECRETARY,HEAD OFFICE, PALAKKAD, 12/994(19), S.N.BUILDING, G.B.ROAD, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAVEENDRAN SRI.ANIL KUMAR M.SIVARAMAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT: 3. THE SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS AND TRANSPORT (M) DEPARTMENT. (IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R3 AS PER ORDER DT. 27.10.06 IN IA 14876/06) BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 25531/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE GOVT.ORDER NO.GO.(RT) 851/90/PW&T DATED 1.6.1990. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER NO.53699/90/PW & T DATED 22.10.91. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER NO.GO.(RT) 427/2000/TRAN. DATED 23.10.2002. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 4/9/06 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE DECISIONS TAKEN BY THE R.T.A., PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 16.8.06. EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 4.10.2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 25531 OF 2006-M ----------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The petitioner is an organization representing Bus Operators. It submits, the concessional travel facility extended to students is being abused by several persons, who are not students. To avoid such misuse of the above facility, in Pathanamthitta district, certain decisions have been taken. Those decisions are contained in Ext.P5. The petitioner forwarded a copy of Ext.P5 to the 2nd respondent Transport Commissioner along with Ext.P4 representation, praying that the Transport Commissioner may direct other Regional Transport Authorities to take similar decisions in other districts also. Thereafter, this writ petition is filed, seeking a writ of mandamus to the 2nd respondent to dispose of Ext.P4 and to direct all Regional Transport Authorities to adopt resolutions similar to Ext.P5. 2. A writ of mandamus can be issued from this Court, if a statutory authority is shown to have failed to discharge its duty and a motion is made by a person having a legal right to the performance of WPC 25531/06 2 that duty. In this case no statutory provision has been brought to my notice, which authorises or mandates the 2nd respondent to issue directions to the Regional Transport Authorities to adopt resolutions similar to Ext.P5. In view of the said position, no writ of mandamus can be issued from this Court, as sought by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. 19th September, 2008. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. Nm/