IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2009 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 26634 of 2009(Y) PETITIONER(S): 1. M.P.IBRAHIM, MATHAPARAMBIL HOUSE,OMASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. V.P.HAMEED ALI, AMBRAKUNNATH HOUSE,OMASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & CHAIRMAN, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,KOZHIKODE. 2. OMASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REP.BY SECRETARY,OMASSERY PANCHAYAT, OMASSERY,KOZHIKODE. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KODUVALLY,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 4. KUNJIRAYIN, AGED 55, KUNHOTHI, NEDUMKANDATHIL, NEELESWARAM, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE. ` 5. UNNIMOYI, AGED 48, S/O. AHEMEDKUTTY HAJI, URAYLANKUNNUMMEL, OMASSERY, KOZHIKODE. 6. R.K. ABDULLA HAI, AGED 52, S/O. MOIDEENKUTTY HAJI, RAYALU KANDI HOUSE, OMASSERY P.O, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE. 7. P.P. SUBAIR, AGED 33, S/O. AHMED, PADINJAREPURAYIL, NEELESWARAM P.O., (VIA) KODUVAYUR, KOZHIKODE. R4 TO R7 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT. 22-10-2009 IN I.A.NO. 12896/2009 ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FOR R2 SRI.V.K.BALACHANDRAN FOR ADDL.RES SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN FOR ADDL.RES GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.S. MOHAMMED HASHIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 26634/2009. -------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF NEWS ITEM. EXT.P2 ROUOGH SKETCH SHOWING THE LIE OF THE BUS STAND. EXT.P3 TRUE EXTRACT OF THE NEWS ITEM. EXT.P4 REPRESENTATION DT. 28-8-2009. EXT.P5 REPRESENTATION DT. 28-8-2009. EXT.P6 RESOLUTION DT. 13-8-2009. EXT.P7 COMMUNICATION DT. 14-10-2009. EXT.P8 NEWS ITEM DT. 25-9-2009. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 26634 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 2nd November, 2009. J U D G M E N T The Panchayat bus stand at Omasserry in Kozhikode district was expanded in March, 2009 by acquiring 31 cents of land in addition to the 35 cents already existing. A new traffic regulation was also introduced consequent thereto in consultation with all interested parties. While so, the 2nd respondent-Panchayat reduced the bus stand to the newly developed 31 cents and converted the old bus stand as an autorickshaw stand. This, according to the petitioners, is without consulting the Regional Transport Authority, which was mandatory under the Motor Vehicles Act. Under the above circumstances, the petitioners filed Exts.P.4 and P5 representations before the 1st respondent. In the meanwhile, the 3rd respondent is taking coercive steps to implement the decision to shift the bus stand, is the grievance of the petitioners. In the above circumstances the petitioners seek the following reliefs: “a) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent not to change the traffic regulations prevailing in Omassery Panchayat Bus Stand since March 2009 as reflected in Ext. P1; b) direct the 3rd respondent by the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction not to obstruct the parking of buses at and picking up or letting down passengers at the old bus stand in Omassery; c) direct the 1st respondent by the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction to consider Ext P4 and P5 representation and take appropriate actions thereon expeditiously.” 2. I have heard the counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader, counsel for the 2nd respondent-Panchayat and additional respondents 4 to 7, who are the interested parties. It is not W.P.C. No. 26634/09 -: 2 :- disputed before me that the present decision of the Panchayat has been taken without consulting Regional Transport Authority. This is stated so in Ext. P7 information obtained by the petitioners from the Regional Transport Office by resort to proceedings under the Right to Information Act. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, the 2nd respondent- Panchayat cannot take such a decision without consulting the Regional Transport Authority. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to reconsider the matter after consulting the RTA and hearing all parties concerned, including the petitioners and respondents 4 to 7. Till a fresh decision is taken, status quo as on today shall be maintained. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/