IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE THE AG.CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/29TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WPC.No. 31833 of 2011 (S) PETITIONER(S) 1 K.S. THOMAS, RESIDING AT KALLARACKAL, KALAVOOR.P.O. ALAPUZHA. BY ADV.SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY RESPONDENT(S) 1 STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TRANSPORT DEPT. GOVT. SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2 THE CHAIRMAN, & MANAGING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION TRANSPORT BHAVAN FORT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC,KSRTC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-12-2011 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.No. 31833 of 2011 (S) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM IMPLEMENTING THE FARE REVISION OF AUGUST, 2011 DT.6.8.2011. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 24.10.2011 ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER REPORTS DT. 4.9.2011 PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY ALING WITH ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE. MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag. CJ & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No.31833 OF 2011 ......................................................................... Dated this the 20th December, 2011 J U D G M E N T P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J: The petitioner who is stated as a public spirited citizen has approached this Court, mainly being aggrieved of the fare hike implemented by the second respondent KSRTC w.e.f. August, 2011, with the prayers as given below: “i) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate order or direction directing the respondents to re-consider Ext.P1 Fare Revision of Bus charges in K.S.R.T.C buses and to re-fix the fare with a reasonable hike of 20% to 25% instead of present hike of 44% to 66%; ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents to fix the minimum fare stages for Limited Stop Fast Passenger, Super Fast Services and Express Bus service W.P.(C) No.31833 OF 2011 2 throughout Kerala and to provide stops for such minimum charges; iii) to issue writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the respondents to provide seats for the passengers who are travelling in Limited Stop Fast Passenger, Super Fast Passenger and Express buses, and to have difference in bus fare for those who are standing in the buses while travelling and also issue direction in allowing the maximum number of passengers in a bus; iv) to issue writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 1st respondent to form a Regulatory Committee for fixation of bus fares and such other allied matters and to direct that only under the recommendations of such Regulatory Committee the fare fixation be implemented by the respondents; And v) to issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court shall deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. The petitioner has referred to some facts and figures as W.P.(C) No.31833 OF 2011 3 to the various fare stages and the actual amount which ought to have been reckoned and implemented by the KSRTC, while fixing fare stages. According to the petitioner, there is absolutely no rationale for the enhancement of fare to such an extent and that the same has adversely affected the public at large; which made the petitioner to approach this Court. 3. On going through the proceedings, not even a single sentence is there in the writ petition, so as to suggest that the petitioner had ventilated his grievance before the second respondent or by approaching the first respondent, if at all aggrieved, in any manner. Immediately, after revision of the fare stages and implementation of the fares by the respondent Corporation, the petitioner simply rushed to this Court by filing the above writ petition styled as a 'public interest litigation'. We find it difficult to accept the version mooted by the petitioner for the plain reason that no sufficient materials have been procured or supplied by the petitioner . So also, the petitioner felt shy of approaching the concerned authorities before rushing to this Court; more so when more facts and figures are essential to have W.P.(C) No.31833 OF 2011 4 a proper analysis and adjudication 4. In the above circumstances, we decline interference and the writ petition is dismissed. It will be open for the petitioner to approach the concerned authorities/Government, if at all any grievance subsists. MANJULA CHELLUR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk