IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2011 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 909 of 2011(K) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. K.RASHEED, S/O.HASSAN, AGED 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT KANDANAKATH HOUSE, KALADI P.O., KANDANAGAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679582. 2. V.K.JYOTHI KUMAR, KONDODE HOUSE, KALADI P.O., KANDANAGAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 679582. BY ADV. SRI.V.JOHN MANI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE SECRETARY, KALADI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. KALADI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, MALAPPURAM. 6. MUHAMMED C., CHANGAMPILLY POST, KALADY, 679582, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 7. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MALAPPURAM 676507. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED SHAH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.909/11 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS EXT.P1: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE RESIDENTS OF THE LOCALITY. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE WOMEN FOLK OF THE LOCALITY. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF RTA, MALAPPURAM DATED 22/2/11. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 909 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are the residents of Kandanagam within the limits of Kalady Grama Panchayat in Malappuram District. They are aggrieved by Ext.P4, the proceedings of RTA, Malappuram allowing shifting of the bus stop at Kandanagam towards Kuttipuram and the new location is allowed 15 metres away from the present position. It is seen that when a proposal was mooted for the shifting of the bus stop, petitioners raised objections evidenced by Exts.P1 to P3 and it was accordingly that the matter was considered by the RTA, which resulted in Ext.P4 proceedings approving the proposal. 2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that shifting of the bus stop has been approved by the RTA and that Ext.P4 does not contain reasons justifying the decision. Although it is true that the order does not contain the reasons as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the statement filed on behalf of the 5th respondent discloses that, on enquiry by the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Ponnani, it was reported WPC No. 909/11 :2 : that the existing bus stop is situated near a steep curve and was causing inconvenience to the travelling public. It is stated that taking note of the said factual report, the RTA took the decision evidenced by Ext.P4. There is nothing on record to indicate that the said factual aspect reported by the Motor Vehicles Inspector is erroneous. If that be so, this Court sitting in writ jurisdiction should not upset the decision of the RTA. This is all the more so since in matters regarding location of a bus stop, it is not for this Court to substitute its views as against the views taken by the statutory authorities. This view I have taken is fully supported by the principles laid down by the Apex Court in J.R.Raghupathy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1988 SC 1681). Writ petition fails and is dismissed. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp //True Copy// PA to Judge