Kerala Bus Transport Association, Ernakulam District Committee v. State of Kerala & Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE** **TUESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 14TH KARTHIKA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.12875 OF 2019(H)** ## **PETITIONER:** **THE KERALA BUS TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION** **ERNAKULAM DISTRICT COMMITTEE, REG. NO. TCR 710/2006 REGISTERED UNDER SC ACT, 1955, DOOR NO. 35/1085-4, 5 M.K.K. NAIR ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI - 682 025 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY K. M. NAVAS.** **BY ADV. SRI.JOSY ANTONY** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** - **2 THE REIGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN - 682 030.** - **3 THE SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM - 682 030.** - **4 JOJI. P. JOSE THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, ERNAKULAM - 682 030.** - **5 THE VIGILANCE AND ANTICORRUPTION BUREAU ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR - 682 017.** - **6 SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM RURAL, ERNAKULAM - 682 032.** - **ADDL.R 7 THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, TRANS TOWER, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.** **(ADDITIONAL 7TH RESPONDENT IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 03/06/2019 IN WPC 12875/2019)** **R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK** **2** **W.P.(C) No.12875/2019** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SRI.S.SANTHOSHKUMAR, SPL. GOVT. PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **W.P.(C) No.12875/2019** **3** ## **JUDGMENT** **Dated this the 5[th] day of November 2019** This writ petition was filed by the Kerala Bus Transport Association, Ernakulam District Committee through its Secretary Sri.K.M.Navas. The relief sought in the writ petition is essentially for an action against the 4[th] respondent Sri.Joji P.Jose, Regional Transport Officer, Ernakulam. It is alleged that the 4[th] respondent deliberately delayed the issuance of permit to the bus owners. It is further stated in the writ petition that those persons who approached the 4[th] respondent through agents were given preference. Accordingly it is stated that this was with an intention to make huge financial gain by the 4[th] respondent. It is the case in the writ petition that the 4[th] respondent unnecessarily issued charge memo and check report with wild allegations. The petitioner appears to have raised a complaint by way of Ext.P2 and Ext.P5 before the Chairman of the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam and the Secretary to Department of Transport, Government of Kerala. 2. In this matter, a counter affidavit has been filed by the 2[nd] respondent. It is stated that stringent actions were initiated in the matter of fitment of door shutters in stage carriage services operating in **W.P.(C) No.12875/2019** **4** the city routes and suburban areas. This was in the light of the directions _vs._ issued by this Court in _**Kerala Bus Transport Association Government of Kerala**_ (2018 (4) KLT 947). It is further stated that the writ petition is a fallout of the action initiated as above. 3. It appears that the Association made a campaign against the officer alleging that he has been harassing bus owners for the purpose of bribe and causing obstruction to the smooth operation of bus service. The public notice has also been made available before this Court along with the counter affidavit. 4. It is to be noted that several interim orders were passed by this Court in the matter to take stringent action against those persons who have violated the statutory provisions. An enquiry report was filed before this Court by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau on behalf of the 5[th] respondent. This enquiry report was in response to the allegations set out in the writ petition. The enquiry report would show that the allegations in the writ petition are unfounded and raised with malafide intention. It is stated in the enquiry report that all the immovable properties acquired by the 4[th] respondent are referred in the Confidential Verification report. It is also stated that the petitioner could not give any information regarding amassment of **W.P.(C) No.12875/2019** **5** assets by the 4[th] respondent. It is further stated that even based on the secret enquiry conducted, no information could be gathered against the 4[th] respondent. 5. This writ petition depicts misuse of a forum of this Court to harass an officer who followed the law to take action against the bus operators. The levelled allegations set out against the 4[th] respondent would show that this was made without any responsibility and accountability. When serious allegations are levelled against a public servant, the person owes a duty to substantiate such allegations. These allegations cast aspersions on the character and career of a public servant. The level of raising allegations would show that the petitioner went to the extent of attempting to mislead the public by affixing pamphlets and posters in public places, personally attacking the officer. 6. There is absolutely no materials to substantiate any of the allegations made by the petitioner at least to point out a prima facie case of action against the 4[th] respondent. The forum of the court has been misused to make publicity and to harass a public officer. The court cannot countenance such action. The court also cannot ignore the malice on the part of the petitioner to harass an officer who was discharging his duties as a public servant. The persons who are levelling allegations **W.P.(C) No.12875/2019** **6** against a public servant owes a duty to establish such allegations. 7. This writ petition has to be dismissed with heavy costs. This Court has to state the reason for the same. When allegations of corruptions are made against a public servant, the court cannot take such allegations lightly. A person must be very serious while making allegations of corruption against a public servant. A public servant normally cannot respond to such allegations except through a platform provided to respond to such allegations.The public servant becomes mute spectator when pamphlets are affixed and published in public places raising allegations of corruption and harassment on the part of him. He cannot respond to those allegations in a public platform. He cannot engage in public arguments regarding the allegations made against him personally. He is circumscribed by law from expressing his opinion with regard to the personal allegations made against him. The person who makes such allegations against a public servant is aware of this fact. Taking note of this disadvantage of a public servant, often allegations are made against him in the nature of corruption or harassment. If such persons are allowed to let loose, public confidence would be eroded as they may consider these allegations are true. The petitioner in this case went on imputing allegations of corruption and **W.P.(C) No.12875/2019** **7** harassment against a public servant by affixing posters in public places. No iota of evidence was produced before this Court to prove at least the _prima facie_ involvement of the 4[th] respondent. It appears that these allegations are made in the forum of this Court to harass a public servant and for publicity. The forum of this Court has been misused as well. In such circumstances, this Court has to dismiss this writ petition with costs. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed with a cost quantified at Rs.5 lakhs. Out of the costs, Rs.3 lakhs shall be paid to the 4[th] respondent and the remaining Rs.2 lakhs to the Kerala Legal Service Authority. In view of the fact that the Association initiated this matter, cost can be recovered from the office bearers of the Association including the Secretary Sri.K.M Navas. If cost is not paid within a period of one month, the District Collector shall initiate revenue recovery proceedings to recover the cost personally from the office bearers. ## **Sd/-** ## **A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE** ## **JUDGE** **smp** **W.P.(C) No.12875/2019** **8** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO DATED 15/01/2019.** **EXHIBIT P1(a)** **TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO DATED 16/01/2019.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19/11/218 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.2.** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29/11/2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER RESPONDENT NO.2** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29/12/2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5[th] RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 31/12/2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 18/10/2016 ALONG WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT.** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF THE MEMBERS OF THE PETITIONER ASSOCIATION** - **3 rd RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT R3(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION PARTICULARS OF THE VEHICLE.** - **EXHIBIT R3(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE CHECK REPORT DATED 11.12.2018 IN RESPECT OF VEHICLE KL 41 B 1691 FOR CONDUCTING SERVICES WITHOUT DOOR SHUTTER.** - **EXHIBIT R3(c) A TRUE COPY OF THE CHECK REPORT OF THE VEHICLE DATED 2.10.2018 FOR CONDUCTING THE SERVICE FITTED WITH AUDIO SYSTEM.** **EXHIBIT R3(d) A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION PARTICULARS OF THE VEHICLES.** **EXHIBIT R3(e) A TRUE COPY OF THE 9 CHECK REPORTS are** **W.P.(C) No.12875/2019** **9** **PENDING AGAINST VEHICLE NO.KL 40 A 8863.** - **EXHIBIT R3(f) A TRUE COPY OF THE 5 CHECK REPORTS ARE PENDING AGAINST VEHICLE NO.KL 41 C 1299.** - **EXHIBIT R3(g) A TRUE COPY OF THE 3 CHECK REPORTS ARE PENDING AGAINST VEHICLE NO.KL 42 C 3459.** - **EXHIBIT R3(h) A TRUE COPY OF THE POSTERS PASTED NEAR THE RESIDENCE OF THE RESPONDENT AND ON THE BACK SIDE OF CERTAIN STAGE CARRIAGE.** - **EXHIBIT R3(i) A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION WITH GOOD SERVICE ENTRY.** - **EXHIBIT R3(j) A TRUE COPIES OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION OF THE GOVNERNMENT OF KERALA.** - **EXHIBIT R3(k) A TRUE COPY OF POSTERS AGAINST THE RESPONDENT.** **4TH RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS** |**EXHIBIT R4(a)**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED**| |---|---| ||**25.01.2014**| - **EXHIBIT R4(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION DATED 15.08.2014** - **EXHIBIT R4(c) A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2016 SCC ONLINE KER 12379** - **EXHIBIT R4(d) A TRUE COPY OF THE CHECK REPORT DATED 21.11.2018.** - **EXHIBIT R4(e) A TRUE COPY OF THE CHECK REPORT DATED 27.11.2018.** - **EXHIBIT R4(f) A TRUE COPY OF THE CHECK REPORT DATED 05.12.2018.** - **EXHIBIT R4(g) A TRUE COPY OF THE CHECK REPORT DATED 16.12.2018.** - **EXHIBIT R4(h) A TRUE COPY OF THE CHECK REPORT DATED 18.12.2018.** - **EXHIBIT R4(i) A TRUE COPY OF THE CHECK REPORT DATED 22.12.2018.** - **EXHIBIT R4(j) A TRUE COPY OF THE CHECK REPORT DATED 28.01.2019.** - **EXHIBIT R4(k) A TRUE COPY OF THE CHECK REPORT DATED** **W.P.(C) No.12875/2019** **10** ||**29.01.2019.**| |---|---| |**EXHIBIT R4(l)**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF 2ND RESPONDENT**| ||**DATED 19.05.2018.**| |**EXHIBIT R4(m)**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF 2ND RESPONDENT**| ||**DATED 02.08.2018**| |**EXHIBIT R4(n)**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED**| ||**11.10.2018 IN WPC NO.30190 OF 2018.**| |**EXHIBIT R4(o)**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED**| ||**19.12.2018.**| True Copy P.S to Judge smp