IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2008 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 32401 of 2008(G) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ PRIVATE BUS OPERATORS ASSOCIATION, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT, V.P.MUKUNDAN. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR SMT.G.CHITRA RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY ALAPPUZHA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER CHERTHALA. 3. THE CHAIRMAN, MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, CHERTHALA. 4. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CHERTHALA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.R.SREELATHA FOR R1,2 &4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.32401/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- ROUGH SKETCH OF THE ROUTE. P2:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DT. 23.7.07. P3:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE IST RESPONDENT DT. 20.2.08. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss V. GIRI, J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 32401 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2008. JUDGMENT Statement filed by the first respondent is taken on record. The petitioner is the President of the Private Bus Operators Association and this writ petition has been filed aggrieved by what is termed as the insistence by the authorities on stage carriage operators to deviate from the approved route. 2. Pursuant to the direction issued by this court, a statement has been filed by the first respondent. The relevant portion of the said statement reads as follows:- “ The first respondent has forwarded the proposal of route variations to the second respondent, who is the authority to conduct a detailed enquiry in the matter. Since the variations proposed are too many, many private stage carriage operators would be affected by the same. A final decision in the matter can be taken after getting the detailed report from the second respondent. The second respondent is directed to submit the report within two weeks WPC. 32401/2008 2 and immediately thereafter the matter will be placed before the next RTA meeting and a decision will be taken. “ 3. May be the proposals for variations have been pending consideration before the RTA. But the operators are bound to operate only after approval by the RTA. It is not open to the authorities to require them to operate otherwise than on approved routes. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents 1, 2 and 4 to ensure that stage carriage operators operate on the route as permitted by the RTA and are not required to operate on the deviated routes unless such deviations are approved by the RTA . V. GIRI, JUDGE. Pmn/ WPC. 32401/2008 3