IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 20TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1869 of 2009(V) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- 1. JESSY GEORGE , PARAPPURATHU HOUSE MARANGATTUPALLY PO, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. JOLLY JOSEPH, PUTHENPURACKKAL MARANGATTUPALLY PO, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. MOLLY JOY, KANTHOKIYIL HOUSE MARANGATTUPALLY PO, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. JOLLY JOSEPH, KAVALAVAZHIKKAL HOUSE MARANGATTUPALLY PO, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN PULIKKAL SMT.MANJU RAJAN SMT.A.AMRUTHA VIDYADHARAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 2. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 1869 OF 2009 (V) ==================== Dated this the 9th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The grievance of the petitioners is regarding the seats that are provided for ladies in KSRTC buses. Petitioners submit that by Ext.P3, the Executive Director (Technical) of KSRTC has directed that the ladies seats should be provided in the front side of the buses. According to the petitioners, this runs counter to Ext.P1 and therefore, Ext.P3 should be interfered with. 2. Learned standing counsel for the KSRTC on instructions submit that whatever they have done is in compliance with the provisions contained in Rule 269, Sub Rule (5) and (6). According to the standing counsel, 25 percent of the seats have been set apart for ladies and as contemplated in Sub Rule 6, the seats so set apart shall be in the front portion of the passengers compartment. It is also stated that even now, only wherever conductors seat is in the rear portion of the buses, seats are still allowed in the rear portion itself. 3. In view of the provisions contained in the Rules as stated above, I see nothing calling for interference with Ext.P3. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp