IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 23RD OCTOBER 2009 / 1ST KARTHIKA 1931 W.A.No. 1369 of 2008 ------------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.5323/2008 Dated 18/02/2008 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ---------------------- K.N.GODASARMAN, AGED 54, S/O.K.C.NARAYANAN NAMBOODIRI, KARIPPAI MANA, NEDUMOURA, CHERUTHURUTHY, TRICHUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON RESPONDENT(S/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2: ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. NOBLE MATHEW. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A. No.1369 of 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this, the 23rd day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant is the writ petitioner. He claims that he is a stage carriage operator. He felt aggrieved by the presence of Rule 289 in the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, which prohibits playing of video or audio C.Ds or cassettes in the stage carriages. Challenging that rule, he approached this Court. The said Writ Petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge and the appeal filed against the said judgment was dismissed by the Division Bench, by Ext.P3 judgment dated 22.9.2006. While dismissing the appeal, the Division Bench observed as follows: “7. The learned Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents, submits that the Government is not unmindful of the objections that have been generally coming from the stage carriage operators in such matters, and have no objection in considering the issue appropriately, W.A. No.1369 of 2008 - 2 - suo motu, even if this Court does not interfere in the matter. 8. We appreciate the above as a correct attitude. While dismissing this appeal, we leave liberty to the appellant to move the Government appropriately as he may choose and the Government also can think of bringing suitable amendments for operators to update themselves with modern trends.” Taking advantage of the above observations, the appellant preferred Ext.P4 representation before the Government. But the Government issued Ext.P5 communication rejecting his request. The said communication reads as follows: “I am to invite your attention to the reference cited and to inform you that Government have examined your request therein. I am also to inform you that the request cannot be granted as there is strong protest on the part of the general public regarding use of audio visual system in the stage carriages.” Challenging Ext.P5, the present Writ Petition was filed. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Hence this Writ Appeal. W.A. No.1369 of 2008 - 3 - 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that Ext.P5 has been passed without affording an opportunity of being heard to him. Secondly, it is submitted that Ext.P5 has been passed taking note of the protest of the public regarding the use of audio video systems in the stage carriages. According to the counsel, there was no material before the Government to arrive at the finding that there was public protest against the use of audio video systems in the stage carriages. 3. We notice that none of the legal rights or legally protected interest of the appellant is affected by Ext.P5. Therefore, before issuing Ext.P5, the appellant cannot claim any right of hearing. He does not have any right to have the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules amended in any particular manner, nor the Government owe any such duty to him. The Government know best the requirements of the people. Under our democratic system, only those who have majority support in W.A. No.1369 of 2008 - 4 - the legislative assembly can govern the State. Such democratically elected Government is presumed to know the hopes, aspirations and views of the people. So, the finding that majority of passengers detested the using of audio video systems in the stage carriages, can be arrived at by the Government without any public hearing. So, both the grounds raised by the appellant fails. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. Sd/- P. Q. Barkath Ali, Judge. DK. (True copy)