IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL THURSDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2011 / 1ST POUSHA 1933 WP(C).No. 33773 of 2011(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ABDUL SATHAR, S/O.YUSUF HAJI, PERAYIL HOUSE, P.O.THIRURKKAD, ANGADIPURAM, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE (TRAFFIC), PERINTHALMANNA- 679 322. 2. DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, MALAPPURAM- 676 505. 3. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PERINTHALMANNA, REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER, PIN 679 322. 4. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM- 676 505. STATE ATTORNEY SRI P.VIJAYARAGHAVAN FOR R1, R2, R4 ADVOCATE BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C) NO.33773/11 A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR STAGE CARRIAGE PERMIT RELATING TO BUS NO.KL-37-2180. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DT.15.02.2001 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT RELATING TO THE PERMIT MENTIONED IN EXT.P1. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT.08.11.2011 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. /TRUE COPY/ P.S TO JUDGE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL, JJ. ===================== W.P.(C) No. 33773 of 2011 ===================== Dated this the 22nd day of December 2011 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose,J. On considering this writ petition containing accusations of police harassment of the petitioner at the instance of the third respondent, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, we directed the State Attorney, who took notice on behalf of the Police Officers to seek instructions as to the correctness of the accusations of the police officer. 2. Today on behalf of the State Attorney, learned Government Pleader Mr.M.K.Aboobacker submitted that the accusations of harassment are without basis. A compliant was received from the Assistant Transport Officer, K.S.R.T.C.,Perinthalmanna that the petitioner is plying his vehicle having registration No. KL-37-2180 in gross violation of the time schedule, which is fixed as per Ext.P2. This was causing loss to the third respondent's service. The petitioner's attendance was solicited only for conducting an enquiry into the WPC. 33773/2011 -2- complaint. The petitioner appeared and he has been warned against deviating from the time schedule fixed in Ext.P2. The action of the Police cannot be branded as harassment. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before us that the allegation that the petitioner has conducted service in deviation of Ext.P2 time schedule is not correct. 2. Whatever that be the only question which we are called upon to decide is whether the action of the police officer in insisting on the attendance of the petitioner can be branded as harassment. According to us, the above question is to be answered only in the negative. We answer the question in the negative and we dispose of the writ petition directing the petitioner to follow time schedule strictly while operating his service. Sd/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE Sd/- K. HARILAL, JUDGE ks. True copy P.S.to Judge WPC. 33773/2011 -3-