IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2009 / 2ND POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 37612 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A. SUNIL, PRASANTHI ROAD, SANTHI NAGAR, PATHAF VILLAGE, MANGALORE, D.K. BY ADV. SRI. SAJEEV K. GOPAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KERALA, TRIVANDRUM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRTARY, STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KASARAGOD. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/12/2009, THE COURT, ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 37612 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 23rd December, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner holds an interstate permit for conducting operation on the route Kottara-Madhur temple via Kasaragod and Mangalore, which is valid up to 16-12-2012. The petitioner's grievance is that without taking any action to cancel the permit under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act, Exts.P3 and P4 check reports have been served on the petitioner directing the petitioner to stop service immediately. The petitioner submits that such action is violative of the principles of natural justice, insofar as the petitioner has not been given an opportunity of being heard before directing stoppage of the service, which entails civil consequences to the petitioner. He also submits that certain orders are referred to in Exts.P3 and P4, copies of which have not been served on the petitioner. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions quashing the originals of Exts.P3 and P4. ii. Declare that issuance of Exts.P3 and P4 check reports by the third respondent are without jurisdiction and there is no enabling provision under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed thereunder for the issuance of such check reports. iii. Declare that the petitioner is entitled to operate his stage carriage bearing Regn. No. K.A-19/C-1983 on the route Kottara- Madhur temple via Kasaragod and Mangalore in the light of Exts.P1 and P2 as long as Exts.P1 and P2 are valid and till the date of expiry specified therein.” 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. The learned Government Pleader would try to justify Exts.P.3 and P4 on the ground that the route in question is not a route notified as per the interstate agreement between the State of Kerala and the State of Karnataka and that is why the impugned action has been W.P.C. No. 37612/09 -: 2 :- initiated. This is disputed by the counsel for the petitioner. 4. Whatever that be, insofar as there is a current valid permit in favour of the petitioner to conduct service in the particular route, unless the same is cancelled by a process known to law, I do not think that Exts.P3 and P4 orders can be issued directing stoppage of the service immediately. On that ground, Exts.P3 and P4 are liable to be quashed. But, in view of the order I propose to pass, it is not necessary to quash Exts.P3 and P4 as such. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: Exts.P1 and P4 shall be treated as show cause notices issued by the 2nd respondent directing the petitioner to show cause why the action contemplated in Exts.P3 and P4 shall not be taken against the petitioner's service. The petitioner shall file objections to the same within two weeks. Thereupon, the 2nd respondent shall consider the objections and pass an appealable order, which shall be served on the petitioner. Till then, needless to say, the petitioner shall be allowed to operate service. S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.