IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2010 / 2ND POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 38552 of 2010(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- NASSAR, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. HAMEEDKUTTY, GENERAL CONVENER, ACTION COUNCIL FOR RT OFFICE, KULANGARATHARAYIL, VENGA P.O., SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM-690 521. BY ADV. SRI.SOORANAD S.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 3. SASTHAMCOTTA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, SASTHAMCOTTA P.O., KOLLAM-690 521, REP. BY THE SECRETARY. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 38552 of 2010 T ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner approached this Court complaining of an alleged attempt to shift the venue of sanctioned R.T.Office from Kunnathoor Taluk Head Quarters, Sasthamcottah to Chakkuvally. 2. In my view, whether the office should be located at one place or other is a matter which is entirely within the domain of the Executive and is out of the bounds for a Court exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly, in the absence of proved malafides. This view is also supported by the principles laid down by the Apex Court in J.R.Reghupathy Vs. State of Andra Pradesh [AIR 1988 SC 1681]. Writ petition fails and it is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks