IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2008 / 3RD BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 18937 of 2008(D) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------------- K.GOPAKUMAR, "GEETHAM", THOTTAKKADU P.O. KALLAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (RURAL) AT ATTINGAL. 3. SHRI.N.RAVEENDRAN PILLAI, "RAMA MANDIRAM", NEAR PADANILAM L.P.SCHOOL, CHIRAYINKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.V.MANOJKUMAR ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.18937/2008 D APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF ORDER NO.C/3864/ATL/07 DTD. 8/2/2007 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: COPY OF ORDER NO.C/532/ATL/07 DTD. 29/03/2007 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: ROUGH SKETCH OF THE ROUTE, REFERRED TO IN THE WRIT PETITION. EXT.P4: ORDER NO.C/2771/ALT/08 DTD. 10/06/2008 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 17/06/2008. EXT.P6: PHOTOGRAPH OF STAGE CARRIAGE, KL-01/T 1664 OPERATING ON THE ROUTE, ATTINGAL-KILIMANOOR, BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF LETTER NO.A.A21/2006 DTD. 13/08/2008 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY (SPECIAL GRADE) OF PAZHAYAKUNNUMMEL GRAMA PANCHAYAT TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) 18937 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: AUGUST 25, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner and the 3rd respondent are operators of stage carriages. While the petitioner is operating on the route Pulimoodu temple - Chirayinkeezh, the 3rd respondent is operating on the route Venjarammoodu - Puthiyakavu. Subsequently variation of permit was granted authorising the 3rd respondent to operate his vehicle upto Kochupalam. According to the petitioner, though the 3rd respondent should have terminated his service at Kochupalam, he is operating his vehicle upto Kilimanoor. It is seen that this grievance of the petitioner was taken up before the 2nd respondent by filing Ext.P5 and complaining that no action has been taken on Ext.P5, this writ petition is filed. 2. In the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, he would inter alia contend that the 1st respondent in its meeting held on 18.4.2008 permitted him to operate the WP(C) 18937/08 2 service terminating the same at Kochupalam private bus stand and it is on that basis he is operating upto the permitted place. It is also stated that he is operating on the original schedule of timings as fixed by Ext.P4. 3. Irrespective of the justification of the 3rd respondent as now offered, I feel that since the petitioner has already moved the 2nd respondent by filing Ext.P5 and as the 2nd respondent is incompetent to resolve this controversy, the 2nd respondent should place the matter before the 1st respondent for its decision. It is directed that thereupon the RTA shall consider the grievance highlighted by the petitioner in Ext.P5 with notice to the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. 3. Petitioner is directed to produce a copy of the writ petition before the 1st and 2nd respondents, who shall thereupon complete the above process as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate, within two months thereafter. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-